FRANCISTOWN:


You can't put gravitational field and electromagnetic field within the same category as mathematics, Logic and consciousness.
Unlike the latters, they do not need any elongated part of transcription and they are physical phenomena.
Information is on the line.

I can sir! None has either Mass, energy or dimension. None of these is "touchable" nor do they reflect any form of light.

FRANCISTOWN:

@the emboldened, are you by any means implying that you consider consciousness to be tangible based on the effects of it's "cause and effect"?

Experience show us that Consciousness is Real. By the definition of causing EFFECTS on biological bodies, it falls under the term TANGIBLE!

Are you worried that your definition of Tangible meaning having effects is proving vague?

FRANCISTOWN:

You see why you and I don't agree on many things. You are not always very careful of your choice of terms.

Brother, please go straight to the point. You can't hornswoggle atheists with these skulduggeries.

I am on point : your definition of terms must be seen to be consistent and applicable to other things

FRANCISTOWN:

I guess babysitting ignorance is being professional. 😂😂

I guess you speak of yourself!

FRANCISTOWN:

How? un-objective as how?
What are you even talking 'bout?


Tangible and Relatable proofs

And then you refuse to let us know exactly what you mean by tangible.

When relating with Christians: you want tangible to be with measurable mass or energy or dimensions

When you are under scrutiny : you want tangible to mean a vague "having effect" on objects.

What would be a relatable proof for a software WITHIN an AI machine?

Dear JessicaRabbit

About the Atheists preferred definition of Atheism as "Lacking Belief in any Deity!"


The phase "Lacking Belief in any Deity!" has serious negative implications.


The ONLY creatures who can TRULY lack a belief in any Deity are
1. Animals: For they lack the ability to comprehend the abstract nature of the definition of a deity
2. Babies: Due to immaturity of mind, they cannot even take any rational position about any deity
3. Imb.eciles: Just like babies cannot take any rational position about deities

I am sure that no atheist will claim to be in any of these three camps of creatures who can LACK BELIEF?


Lacking a Belief in an subject means:
You do not have ANY position for or against the subject.

Belief:
A Belief is a position we take when we do NOT have sufficient information to be 100% CERTAIN about a subject.

Examples of possible Beliefs
-Russia will win the war over Ukraine
-Third World war is inevitable within the next two years
-By Next month, $1.00 will be less than N600.00

What a rational person does before he takes a person of Belief is that he weighs PROBABILITY according to his judgment from available information he has if his position is worth holding or not.


The ONLY reason you bother to spend time on the Religious section of Nairaland is that you believe you have enough justification to DISCARD the Deity of the Christians and others!

budaatum:


This is not true! We did not "solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe", and you saying we did just shows you are not really hearing what you read or are just plain telling lies, because if you read what I and many wrote you will read where we said the fact that we may have sat down and wrote every line of the code and then put it in the machine is evidence that the software ought to be in the machine, and we offered methods to check, but it seems like you just want to go on the merry-go-round again by lying to yourself that we said what we never said while ignoring what was said.

To wit, goodluck with that.

You see why it was good to review these positions even when it sounds monotonous?

Why then did you say that the software was Tangible?

Can you please use your definition of "Tangible" to say why you think each of the following is Tangible (if they are) .
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

I need to know your exact position and definition of the word "Tangible"

budaatum:

Apply what logic consistently? Though I know you know I do.
We are talking about definitions, please, and have struggled over many pages on it, so I don't think we are ready for logic yet.

Words, for users of them by some of us here, are fluid, and may mean different things in different contexts, which is why it is good that you define the words you contest, so asking for the sort of open ended consistency you wish for may meet exceptions, do note.

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the Software being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

AGAIN: For the Avoidance of Doubt, does this position represent your Definition of Tangible with respect to Software in a Machine?
First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

budaatum:

I have read that verse before, Tenq. What I have not done is allow such a rubbish verse to become a part of the software that programs me such that I would stupidly equate myself with clay while some are potters and some are aspiring to be the work and even the Your Hand O Lord.

Trust me, this is not a surprise.
Many atheist become such because they reject to be under the Authority of any Deity (Creator or not). These to me are the TRUE Atheist, who do not hide under being Agnostic.

triplechoice:
You're very vague here. Which " for the same context" are you talking about?
. You're clowing yourself. If you have no hidden agenda, which has been exposed in your conversation with Jessica ,why should you bother yourself with ,the consistency of the word, tangible or intangible when discussing software? A software ,when defined in some dictionaries is described as intangible, but not the same intangible as spirit.


This was why I said the meaning of word is determined by the context in which it's used. You haven't created any real context yet you're looking for consistency.

Are you discussing spirit or a computer software?

The Question was simple:
Is the Software WITHIN the memory of a HDD Tangible or not tangible?

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the SOftware being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

I only ask, can you be consistent in saying that ANY Nomenclature that has Effects on the Physical Hardware is Tangible?

triplechoice:


What you don't know is this,

The meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it's used. So for that, you cannot demand for consistency in meeting. Yes, you can't .

Focus on yourself and put in the effort in telling your audience in what context you're using , tangible, so you're understood clearly.

But the problem is, you're neither here nor there. One minute you're lecturing about software,the next you have jumped to criticising and insulting those whom you claim want physical quantification of God before they believe. Why ?

If you're demanding for consistency, then you must be consistent yourself.

Of course for the same context, no difference.
So, you will be consistent with your definition.

First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible


Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

triplechoice:


Why do you want to know my position?

You can't tell your opponent how they must debate with you or how they must use a, word to mean only one thing when they're different meanings attached to it.

Just argue your points and everyone will understand you. That's all .

You have been asked at different times to define spirit or to come up with your true intention behind your mention of a software.

Each time, what you do is to ignore the question. Now the same you want your own questions to be answered or we choose something. You're not ready

The reason is that you have to be consistent with your definition of Tangibles

Do you not trust your understanding of the word Tangible again?

JessicaRabbit:

Perception of what, exactly? That reality requires magic?

Perception of your claim.

JessicaRabbit:

Neptune wasn't just "unknown" though. Its existence was actively disproven by the prevailing theory of planetary motion. It was a mathematical oddity, and a wrinkle in the celestial fabric that science couldn't explain... at least at that point in time. Electrons, on the other hand, weren't some missing puzzle piece. They weren't a theoretical "what if" but an entirely new concept. The discovery of the electron revolution wasn't just uncovering something hidden, it was fundamentally redefining our understanding of matter itself. So, while your point about the limitations of knowledge is sound, it misses the mark here. The discovery of Neptune wasn't about "unknown existing," it was about revising what we thought we knew about the existing. I hope that makes sense.

Prior to the year 1849, did they know if there was anything called Electrons?
Since they didn't know, does it imply that electrons did not exist at that time?
Lack of knowledge of the awareness of an object is not equivalent to the object not existing

JessicaRabbit:

Finding gadgets on the planet Mars wouldn't automatically equate to a software. You're jumping the gun here. We'd first have to understand their functionality, how they operate etc. What if it's an advanced civilization using something entirely different from code? And ultimately, even if they did use software, it wouldn't prove a divine software engineer is out there. It just shows another intelligent being figured out a way to manipulate information, just like us! You're right that a mirage is only an illusion caused by physics, not some independent entity. But the key difference is, a mirage doesn't have any effects. You can't fill your canteen with a mirage, can you? Software, on the other hand, demonstrably alters the machine's behavior. It tells the hardware what to do, and the results are real. Data and information encoded are just fancy ways of saying "a specific set of instructions". Those instructions are what make the software "real" in its ability to produce effects, just like a recipe isn't a magical gateway to a delicious cake, it's the instructions that, when followed, lead to the cake's existence.

If we find a non-carbon based living thing on Mars, would we not ascribe to it LIFE?
If you found a kind of computer on Mars, would you not allude to it being programmed?

Let me act like the Atheists on this Nairaland here: Mirage has Effects and the The Effect is that you SEE it
with your eyes! LOL!! (It can be frustrating).

Of course we know from experience that softwares in a Machine are REAL
However, I do not think I am CERTAIN of your definition for TANGIBLE with Respect to Softwares.

Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

JessicaRabbit:

I'm a bit amused by your understanding of consciousness which you have presented. Plants can react to stimuli, is that rudimentary sentience according to your definition? What about a thermostat -- it senses temperature and chooses (based on its programming) to turn on or off. Is that feeling and choosing? If you really want to enter the twisted maze of the consciousness topic, I'll have you know that it's probably way more complex than you can imagine. And quite frankly, the way you have described consciousness here reads like a disingenuous attempt at moving the goalposts.

There is no definite scientific position on whether Plants are conscious or NOT.
Plants do exhibit behaviors and responses to their environment, such as growth toward light (phototropism), response to touch (thigmotropism), and the ability to detect and respond to changes in temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors. These behaviors are typically explained by physiological processes and mechanisms such as hormone signaling, but whether they constitute consciousness in the way humans or animals experience it is unclear.

This was why I tried to differentiate between Consciousness and Sensing of Information. A Thermostat senses temperature, but is is not conscious.

JessicaRabbit:

LOL. Please try not to get yourself lost in the labyrinth of technicalities. You see, claiming I "don't believe" in a deity implies a specific god you have in mind, a preordained image that I'm rejecting. But the truth is far vaster. From the thunder gods of Norse mythology to the invisible hand of deism, the history of humanity is littered with discarded deities. Saying I "lack belief" simply acknowledges this vast pantheon of the non-existent. I don't know what you mean by "serious negative implications" of lacking belief, but I'll go out on a limb here and bet that it connotes nothing beyond the usual fear-mongering, for example, the fear of eternal damnation, a concept conveniently absent from most of human history.

I will treat the implication of this on another page!

JessicaRabbit:

I'm afraid your distinction of belief from faith crumbles severely when we scrutinize your position properly. If your faith in God is based on a "relationship and experience," then that experience must come from somewhere, right? I'll give you a clue: there's a distinct lack of verifiable evidence for this divine companionship. As for me, my experiences tend to be grounded in the real world, not whispers in the night. Also, the claim that "logic and common sense alone are enough to conclusively prove the creation of the universe is blatantly false, and is a classic example of the argument from incredulity. Just because something seems inexplicable to us now doesn't mean it requires a divine creator. The universe is vast and strange, and our scientific understanding is constantly evolving. Look, if your faith brings you comfort, that's wonderful. But please, don't mistake emotional resonance for objective truth. True faith, if it exists at all, should be able to withstand scrutiny, not require constant redefinition and mental gymnastics.

Like I said, this is how we as Christians understand Faith and Belief, you don't have to agree with it because you are not one of us.
It is a SUBJECTIVE experience that Every Christian have about God.

JessicaRabbit:

Yes, in the same way that a teacup orbiting Jupiter is "logically possible". Sure, the laws of physics wouldn't necessarily explode, but it's about as helpful as a chocolate teapot. We crave beginnings, that much is true, but clinging to a nonsensical concept to avoid the unknown is hardly a triumph of reason.

I asked you a simple question:
Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience?

JessicaRabbit:

Ok, cool. But just because science can't explain something yet, it doesn't mean it needs a divine explanation. We used to think lightning was Zeus throwing thunderbolts, you know? The good news is, science is constantly expanding the boundaries of what we know. Maybe one day we'll crack the code before the Big Bang. Until then, I'll stick with falsifiable theories, not divine hunches.

There was a divine explanation before the advent of science : it is science that is trying to say otherwise without giving a definite replacing answer.

JessicaRabbit:

Duh! Rules of logic are fantastic...for things that follow logic.

Mathematics and Logic has nothing to do with matter, therefore, they could predate time itself.

JessicaRabbit:

Existence precedes truth, my dear. There are ideas and concepts that are beyond our current scientific understanding, but that doesn't necessarily elevate them to become some kind of mystical truth. It just means there's more to learn, not that we need to invent celestial sky wizards to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Truth should precede existence of matter . Truth is an aspect of LOGIC

JessicaRabbit:

Why not? Is there some cosmic law written in invisible ink that dictates a cosmic stop sign at some arbitrary point in the past? Science, with its ever-expanding understanding of the universe, doesn't offer such a guarantee.

Then , can you please show how an Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is possible?

JessicaRabbit:

True enough, on a popcorn-popping level. But here's the rub: that cause-and-effect dance we see around us might not apply to the very origin of everything. Imagine the universe being a completely new kind of game with different rules -- who's to say that our familiar cause-and-effect framework even applies at that level?

We all agree that cause and Effect exist.

JessicaRabbit:

...and this, my friend, is where your logic does a pirouette into the land of fantasy. Just because we can't fathom something existing without a cause, doesn't mean the universe is obligated to play by our limited human understanding. It's entirely possible the universe itself is the ultimate self-starter, a cosmic paradox existing outside our neat little cause-and-effect boxes.

Only if you can show Logically that Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is possible;

Otherwise, the Deduction stands:
There must be A Primary Cause or an Uncaused First Cause that started the chain of cause and Effect

JessicaRabbit:

Actually, our understanding of atoms has certainly evolved! We went from indivisible balls to complex structures with protons, neutrons, and electrons. But that's our knowledge evolving, not the atoms themselves. Tell you what, how about we ditch the redundant word games and stick to topics where evolution refers to actual change in living things, not our metaphors for matter, shall we?

I did not ask you about our understanding of atoms and molecules.
I asked
Did Atoms also evolved?

JessicaRabbit:

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving things catchy names. For example, maybe we can start calling that pesky dark matter "WIMP" after all, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, which sounds far more whimsical than a clump of unseen stuff messing with gravity. But while that might seem all fine and dandy, it still won't get you around the fact that simply assigning a label, even a divinely inspired one like "Yahweh," doesn't actually tell us anything new about the uncaused first cause. It's like calling a black hole "The Great Devourer." Sure, it sounds impressive, but does it really explain how it bends spacetime? If you're saying Yahweh is the uncaused first cause, then we need to unpack what that means about Yahweh himself. Does he exist outside of time and space, given he's the supposed cause of it all? If so, how can we even comprehend such a being with our very human, time-bound brains? The concept of an uncaused first cause might be fascinating as a philosophical musing on existence itself. But it's highly presumptuous to claim to know the identity of this uncaused first cause with such certainty, especially when it hinges on a specific interpretation of a religious text.

It is the Beauty of Language: Whatever you call it , so it is!
Except it is a person who told you his/her name.

JessicaRabbit:

Perhaps the singular fact you desperately need to grasp is that complexity, as fascinating as it sounds, is only just a spectrum. A Boeing 787 Dreamliner is an intricate marvel of engineering compared to a single-celled organism, no matter how impressive a bacterium's internal workings might be. Furthermore, and no matter how you choose to look at it, sandcastles are a product of complex physical interactions -- water tension, grain size, and wave action. Just because it doesn't have directly interworking parts like a machine doesn't mean it's not governed by underlying principles. But I guess the real kicker here is the list you drafted. Water cycles, food chains, digestion -- these are all fantastic examples of emergent properties. Imagine an anthill: no single ant has a blueprint for the whole structure, yet their collective behavior creates a complex system. Similarly, natural processes like evolution can lead to intricate results without a central planner.

The aeroplane is complex: but it can be made in a garage
Can one make an Eye in the garage?

I have shown you that the complexities of LIFE is far much more than the Being itself BUT its environment.

The System of the Body need the System of the Earth to survive. This is the point.

JessicaRabbit:

Your "random chemical reactions" argument is a blatant strawman. Nobody claims life arose from pure randomness. It likely emerged through a series of complex, non-random interactions over vast stretches of time. Bottom line is that the beauty and complexity of nature doesn't necessitate a divine architect. Science offers a compelling explanation for these phenomena, and frankly, it's a far more interesting story than magic sky wizards.

So, what drove chemical reactions to form chains of carbon and nitrogen and then BUILD a code into it (DNA) which formed the fundermental basis of life?

triplechoice:


It's you who has the problem of not knowing what's a figure of speech.

What you're trying to do now is medicine after death.. You're no more in a position to tell anyone here how they must use the word tangible or how they must be consistent with it.

You're not just presenting an exposition on computer softwares, but using it as an extended metaphor to prove something you're not bold enough to mention.

Not only that, you have turned the whole conversation into a debate,a competition, you must win at all cost.

And so, sticking to your definition of tangible or how it must be consistently used is not only stupid,but also conceding defeat to you .

You can't be the moderator and judge in a debate between you and your opponent.

If I were to choose, I would choose both. But I'm not choosing here.

Just go ahead using the software to prove indirectly that the God of the Bible ,even though you say it's not measurable, tangible ,exist or is real. That's your intention and everyone is fully aware of it


I won't fall for your trap.

You have just explained why you refused to accept the definition of Tangible and now when I decided to adopt your definition, it still scares you.



Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

KnownUnknown:


You’re a very funny guy.

This is your answer to my questions?

Question:
1. A Meteor and a Ball Pen, which is more complex?
2. Tell me, what is the function or purpose of a meteor?

KnownUnknown:


Lmao. This is divine comedy.
Since complexities requires a cause, the “uncaused first cause” must be very simple. No?

He says meteors are not complex but atoms are.
I wonder if astrophysicists are aware of “atomless meteors!
Atomless eyes, atomless cells, atomless dick of the Holy Spirit!

Fvck!

Many times you dont listen to yourself before you speak

Question:
1. A Meteor and a Ball Pen, which is more complex?
2. Tell me, what is the function or purpose of a meteor?

JessicaRabbit:


Complexity is relative, my friend, not absolute. You're throwing everything from eyeballs to airplanes at me, but let's be honest, an airplane is an ingenious feat of human engineering, while a meteor is basically a glorified rock hurtling through space. The question here isn't just "is it complex?", but "how did that complexity arise?" Meteors? They formed from condensing dust and gas in the early solar system. No divine intervention required. Living things? Millions of years of evolution built upon the foundation of those simpler building blocks.

It is easy to define (a minimum criteria) for a complex object if it consist of at least two interdependent systems.
Of course Meters are not complex. The may even be from debris from colliding larger bodies.

Deliberately, I gave you a Ball Pen as an example of complex objects
The metal ball
The ink
The Ball Socket
The Ink Receiver
The Ink Reservoir
The Finger Grip Stem
All which must simultaneously exist for it to function as a pen: this is a complex assembly of system, so we know that it is the work of an Intelligent mind BECAUSE all these work together for a purpose: WRITING on a paper. (We didnt even spaek about the paper)

JessicaRabbit:


Ok, so we are in agreement! Dark matter isn't something you can cozy up to on the couch with. It's the ultimate cosmic ghost, exerting influence but remaining stubbornly unseen. Now, that's an interesting concept for something supposedly material. But wait, your argument hinges on the very property it denies dark matter: the ability to interact! We only know about dark matter because of its gravitational pull, an interaction with the fabric of spacetime. So, are we to believe dark matter is a picky eater of forces, shunning electromagnetism but indulging in gravity? Sounds less like tangible matter and more like a theoretical phantom with a gravitational sweet tooth. Isn't it a bit curious that a concept as fundamental as dark matter, supposedly composing a hefty chunk of the universe, remains so frustratingly obscure? It makes you wonder: are we defining something real, or simply filling a cosmic pothole in our current scientific framework with a theoretical fudge factor?

I think you are getting it wrong: no one knows the exact nature of Dark matter!
We don't know whether Dark Matter is a kind of material or not, all we know that it has some serious magnetic fields and thus mass is inferred. The Effects of Dark matter is Inferred from from its gravitational effects on matter.

I do not deny the ability of Dark Matter to interact.
Examples of Realities that are not Tangible BUT only interact (has Effect on matter) which I have given in this thread include Gravitational Fields, Electric Fields and Magnetic Field.
Dark matter is not considered tangible in the conventional sense even though it is believed to have mass and energy (when it is treated as a mass that distorts or bends the space-time fabric resulting in gravitational effect).

It is safe to say that we don't know much about Dark Matter!
When we have enough knowledge, we can be certain of how it is Tangible or how it is not

Hi, This is TenQ
I gat a ban from overzealous nairaland spam bot

triplechoice:


You want tangible to mean what you want it to mean so you can fool everyone. You're not serious.

You insisted tangible was used metaphorically in the statement, "Her grief is tangible" and I corrected you. Instead of acknowledging your
error and just proceed with other things , you want to bring in confusion with this long talk



Tangible in that sentence is an adjective describing the quality of her grief. That it's tangible . Because she felt it ( the emotions of grief) intensely, it affected her brain and body.

Whether with her hands or body, the truth was that she felt it as tangible. It wasn't a figure of speech.

If you can't understand this simple thing,then you will struggle to understand what others have been explaining in English language for you.

And you have been struggling as can be seen from the evidence of your responses to others here. You're not responding directly. Meaning you don't fully comprehend what you read.
Just use pidgin please . You won't be criticized for using that. Proficiency in English language is not a mark of intelligence.

I think I have solved your problem. The only issue is that you MUST be consistent with how you use the Term TANGIBLE.

Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

JessicaRabbit:

I really don't think so. I'm just pointing out that your arguments might seem to rely more on smoke and mirrors, than actual evidence.

Its an error of perception.

JessicaRabbit:

Neptune! For decades, it was just a mathematical wobble in the orbit of Uranus -- an "idea" dreamt up by astronomers. Did it exist in the physical sense? Not a chance. But was it real? As real as a clothing store receipt. The universe itself doesn't care about our arbitrary definitions of "real." It just is. And sometimes, what "is" can be discovered through the power of reason, even before our eyes lay witness.

The fact that an information of the Existence of an object is unknown does not imply that it doesn't exist. The fact that an information of the Reality of an object is unknown does not imply that it doesn't exist.

There was a time no one knew that Electrons are real and existed and it doesn't make electrons not to exist or be real before the 19th century

JessicaRabbit:

Existence doesn't automatically equate to "real" in the same way a mirage exists but isn't a real pool of water. A software is demonstrably real in the sense that it has effects, but it's a human-built phenomenon, not some fundamental aspect of the universe. Your initial point about the software's tangible existence still stands by the way, but you need to understand that it is just a set of instructions, fashioned by humans to tell the hardware what to do. It exists, demonstrably so, but suggesting that it is some ethereal Platonic ideal woven into the fabric of reality is only you leaping into the realm of pure speculation. The software within an Artificial Intelligence (AI) is just the arrangement of electrical states within the machine. It would be quite a reach to suggest that it constitutes any kind of evidence for a soul downloaded into a computer, as opposed to a fancy way of just organizing 1s and 0s in a specific pattern etched into silicon. The software itself is intangible, a set of instructions. The hardware that executes those instructions, however, is undeniably tangible. It's wires, circuits, processors -- things you can touch and get some or any kind of physical sensation. So, the AI's "mind" (if you can even call it that) emerges from the complex interplay between a very tangible machine and intangible instructions. It's the result of a process, not a separate entity on its own.

At any rate, I'd prefer if we do not get bogged down in semantics. An interesting question one might ask is if this emergent intelligence from AI software qualifies as some kind of consciousness or sentience? That's a fascinating debate for another day, and perhaps one where a clear, and agreed upon, definition of "real" might actually be useful.

Of course we know that a software was made by a humans: What if we go to Mars and find some Gadgets that behaves exactly like our computer, would we conclude that it has a kind of software or not?

A Mirage does not exist. It is an illusion seen by the eyes seeing the reflection of the sun or the hot road or desert sand.
The software within an Artificial Intelligence (AI) is NOT just the arrangement of electrical states within the machine but DATA and INFORMATION (Commands) encoded. Example, arrangement of alphabets on a paper does not translate into ANYTHING if the alphabets are not encoded with INFORMATION.
Your Question:
Does this emergent intelligence from AI software qualifies as some kind of consciousness or sentience?
The Answer is NO: Consciousness is only possible when an object can FEEL (not sense) the environment AND then CHOOSE if it desires the Experience or NOT AND Do something about it.

JessicaRabbit:

Of course it may frustrate you because you may lack the capacity to delve into the rabbit hole of understanding the nuances of human beliefs. I'm not saying it is necessarily the case with you, but I've observed that it is the case with most Christians I've talked to. Here's the real kicker, TenQ: lacking a belief in unicorns doesn't require a grand unified theory of unicornology, does it? Perhaps you could enlighten me on the rigorous philosophical system underpinning your belief in fairies? As for my "preferred" claim of lacking belief, well, that's because it's the most accurate. The burden of proof, as they say in logic circles (which I hope you frequent!), lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. You believe in a deity? That's cute. Now back it up with something more substantial than "because faith."

It is better to say you do not believe in any deity than claim you lack belief in any deity!
Lacking a belief comes with serious negative implications!

JessicaRabbit:

Come on now, TenQ. Don't you read your Bible? How can I reason my way to a deity who literally wants me to believe by blind faith, not reason? In that case, then maybe I should get a map, a flashlight, and a good lawyer specializing in divine non-disclosure agreements!

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
- Hebrews 11:1-3

5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight.
- 2 Corinthians 5:7

You mix up two different definitions as used by Christians
Believe:
Is taking a position you consider as reasonable when you do not have enough facts to be 100% certain of the outcome of an event
e.g. I believe that the war between Russia and Ukraine will end in the defeat of Russia?
Faith:
Faith is a Trust we have in or about the Integrity of a Personality (God) due to our relationship and experience with Him.
e.g. I know my husband, he will not cheat on me! (is faith)

Believing in God should translate to Faith in God as one walks (builds experience) with God.
Faith is NOT Blind, and it is backed up with Experience,

You don't have to accept or reject this: this is how we understand things!

However, Logic and Common sense alone is enough to take one to know that the Universe was Created.

JessicaRabbit:

You say an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible, but then you posit an "Uncaused First Cause." Isn't that a bit like playing whack-a-mole with logic? You've only just pushed the problem back a step and declared premature victory. Infinite regress? More like Infinite sidestep!

Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience?

JessicaRabbit:

The universe had a beginning, sure. Science doesn't shy away from that. But to leap from "beginning" to "therefore God" is a bit of a kangaroo jump over a whole lot of "we don't know yet." There are plenty of cosmological theories out there that don't require a divine creator.

Any one can propose theories and it is impossible to scientifically know the answer.
Why?
We can know up to when the point of Singularity Inflated or Expanded as Big Bang, BUT we cannot know what happened BEFORE the Big bang
The Reason is because all our laws of Physics and Chemistry breaks down. There is no going past it with our tools. Time ,Space and Matter came simultaneously at the expansion of this singularity

JessicaRabbit:

Bah! How awfully convenient. How can we even reason about something that's fundamentally outside the realm of our logic and observation? It's the ultimate "because magic" argument!

The Rules of Logic should still hold isn't it?

JessicaRabbit:

So the cause of the universe isn't bound by the laws of physics we painstakingly observe? Sounds like a cop-out to explain the unexplained. Perhaps there are yet-to-be-discovered physical principles that explain the origin of everything.

Is this NOT True?

JessicaRabbit:

An uncaused cause? Isn't that a paradox wrapped in an enigma? Maybe the concept of cause and effect simply breaks down at the very beginning. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just reference Planck Time just seconds ago, lol?

...because the laws of Physics and Chemistry did not exist until after the big bang/inflation

Its just a play of Logic
Premise:
1. Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is NOT possible
2. There are Causes and their Effects
Deduction:
There must be A Primary Cause or an Uncaused First Cause that started the chaing of cause and Effect

JessicaRabbit:

Well then, hold my beer and watch evolution. Blind variation and natural selection, not divine intervention, explain the incredible complexity of life.

Did Atoms also evolve?

JessicaRabbit:

So we go from uncaused first cause to "Yahweh" because... why exactly? This feels more like slapping a label on the unknown than an actual explanation.

My language was clear on this:
The Cause of the Universe can therefore be called the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. As Christians we know His name as Yahweh and people just call Him God.

This is the nomenclature we as Christians Give the[b] Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything.[/b]

JessicaRabbit:

This is just a rehash of Paley's Watchmaker argument, and it is notorious for being a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, or, perhaps in your case, missing the hangar for the airplane parts 😉.

First of all, we obviously can't deny the fact that airplanes are ridiculously complex. But it would be shallow thinking to conclude that complexity automatically must always equate to intelligent design. Sandcastles, as I mentioned before, exhibits fascinating patterns due to physics, not some divine architect. It's true that various airplane parts working together to make it fly. But here's the key difference: those parts were intentionally designed by humans, informed by scientific principles. In our chaotic scenario, there's no designer, no blueprints, just a jumbled mess of parts.

More importantly, and this is just a question that has intrigued me for some time now: if we accept that everything was designed by God, then can you point me to something that wasn't designed by God, which we can use as reference or comparisons to justify things that were designed?

Aeroplane is not near as complex as a Bacteria or the Eye or the Cat

Sandcastles are not complex: they can't be broken up into any interworking system

But you find it difficult that there was intelligence behind the
The Water Cycle
The Carbon Cycle
The Food Cycle
without which there would be no LIFE
What of Reproduction, the Brain, Instinct in animals, Digestion, SIght, Hearing, Locomotion etc ?

You think they all occurred by random chemical reactions?

JessicaRabbit:


Are you saying that complexity must imply a cause? If so, then what's the deal with all those meteors that have been hurtling towards us for years? They're coming to earth for a dentist appointment, right?

Yes, Complexities must have a Cause!
Meteors are simple projectiles moving in their orbits: they are not complex

Atoms are complex
Cells are complex
The Eye Ball
Living things are complex
Airplanes are complex
A Ball Pen is complex
A Computer is complex

WHY?: They consist of several interdependent systems to function

Hello Jessica,
This is TenQ, I got banned for posting 3 links to Buda

JessicaRabbit:


Is dark matter tangible by your definition then? We know it interacts with gravity, has effects on matter, yet it remains stubbornly undetectable by our current tools. Don't you think a definition that doesn't hinge on our current capacity for physical interaction should suffice?

Dark Matter is NOT Tangible:
Dark matter is not considered tangible in the conventional sense because it is a term used to describe a type of matter that does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and thus cannot be directly observed using traditional telescopes or other instruments that detect light.
The Effects of Dark matter is Inferred from from its gravitational effects on matter: that is, it can neither can it be seen nor touched but its gravitational influence on motions of Galaxies.

However, because of its gravitational effects, Dark matter is believed to have mass and energy, and is proposed to be distributed throughout the whole universe but its exact properties remain largely unknown. Why? Because we know the relationship between mass and gravitational energy.

Dark matter's exact physical properties are still undiscovered and thus its a work in progress.

Hello Buda, This is TenQ
I got banned replying one of your posts

budaatum:

And I think I agreed with your definition if that is what you understand. Then I gave you my definition, and I showed you how it is used by me so you too could understand. But you said no! That buda too must believe your definition as if words can't have many meanings and definitions or like you were buda's god.

And I have adopted ALL your definition as long as you apply your logic consistently.

budaatum:

And you now have the audacity to threaten to inflict pain on buda and kill buda and remove buda off the face of the earth, TenQ!
buda is not clay, TenQ, and you are not anyone's potter, and you obviously don't have the right nor the authority as you can see from the tangible and intangible evidence that is before us all.

How quick you took this personal. Your Reference was about Adam and Eve: and I reported that God as the potter has every right to make His Clay (Adam and Eve) anyhow He wants. The failure of Adam and Eve is the result of Death, Pain we have on the earth

Seems youve not read this verse before:

Isaiah 64:8 -
But now, O Lord, You are our Father,We are the clay, and You our potter;And all of us are the work of Your hand.

AntiChristian:
Na to just report you as a thread derailer and we move on!

He who lives in a glass house... !
LOL!

NairaLTQ:

How do you expect that we wouldn't talk about the Best of the Best of the Best prophet and human being who committed sacrileges with the support of Allah!

Doesn't it have an explanation?


Confirm or Deny
Is it untrue that, Your your prophet is an adulterer who committed Zina against his wives and it was with the approval of Allah!

Is it untrue that his sons wife is not even off limit to him!? Sorry, I forgot that Allah gave him Zainab!

Are these not with the approval of Allah!

You are even afraid to quote my post: is it shameful?

AntiChristian:
What about the thirty he killed stealing their garment to fulfill his bet and the holy spirit even empowered him to do so?

The thread is about the holy spirit not Islam nor Muhammad! So stop the diversion!

How do you expect that we wouldn't talk about the Best of the Best of the Best prophet and human being who committed sacrileges with the support of Allah!

Doesn't it have an explanation?


Confirm od Deny
Is it untrue that, Your your prophet is an adulterer who committed Zina against his wives and it was with the approval of Allah!

Is it untrue that his sons wife is not even off limit to him!? Sorry, I forgot that Allah gave him Zainab!

Are these not with the approval of Allah!

YesDaddyTill203:
Another trash propaganda from the apartheid terrorist state of Israel.
After how many months they are still struggling to defeat Hamas after all thr Billions of dollars from the US tax payers like myself.
We stand with Palestine.


FVCK Israel.

So the underground structure of Hamas wasn't found under UNRWA building?

It is just a propaganda by Israel!

RaySimran:
Hamas so sophisticated, how do they source funds to build this great tunnels being discovered everywhere?

Its from all the intercepted humanitarian Aids that was supposed to come to Gazans!

AntiChristian:


Na spirit wey enter Samson wey he kill lion enter you and your family this morning!

Abeg no kill anyone o!

Samson killed the lion: he did not commit sacrilege..

However
Is it untrue that, Your your prophet is an adulterer who committed Zina against his wives and it was with the approval of Allah!

Is it untrue that his sons wife is not even off limit to him!? Sorry, I forgot that Allah gave him Zainab!

Are these not with the approval of Allah!

Scholace:
I have never hope on him. I only share my experience when the need arise. I don't have his number on my phone neither do i know the road to his house. He always Kill cow during festive season and he was complaining to my dad's immediate younger brother that we don't come to his house to celebrate with him. My dad insulted the living daylight out of him asking him what does he take his children for? We're not entitled to his wealth but we all know he owe my dad and mum obviously.

Then, let it go: God will bless you too!
Amen

honesttalk21:


You are being very dodgy.
Your comprehension of the English language is beyond what you try to confuse with. I say:



You cannot detect the supposed nature of the statement Consideration of Allah as a spirit is a matter beyond human comprehension? The What if nature?

But you say



I will show you that he is NOT a boundless spiritual entity is part of your statement. Your show style interjected with many other questions further beclouds what you say.

You could have stated your showing clearly first before going into other questions if you were not trying to confuse?

You are spinning a Web of utmost contradiction.

The first is according to the consensus of your scholars,
1. Allah is NOT a spirit.
AND
2. The Spirit is a Creation of of Allah

The notion or consideration that Allah as a spirit is a matter beyond human comprehension is FALACY because Allah is NOT a spirit in the first place!

It's just like saying :
Allah is not a FISH
But
Allah is a Fish and this is beyond human comprehension

Does this make sense to you?
Is this not an impossible contradiction?

Scholace:
he's not struggling to survive. This is someone we know too well.

Not withstanding, his needs are far above yours.
Please take your eyes of him as it will only cause you pain. Your help is not from him: he may owe your dad a bunch of gratitude but he doesn't owe you. Unfortunately, your father helped him because of God and the kinship he had with him.

Look to the sky and take your leap: the worst is that you'd get a broken wing while trying. I want to encourage you to stop waiting for him, take your risks as long as it is a legitimate endeavour.

You never know, if you'd be the person God will use for your whole community. The point is, when you succeed, don't be like your uncle

AntiChristian:


Do not answer a fool is a verse of the Bible!

Answer a fool... is another verse that follows the former!

I can choose any at any point in time!

I can understand as your prophet is an adulterer who committed Zina against his wives and it was with the approval of Allah!

Scholace:
Some uncles are truly useless. My dad singlehandedly raised his little brother till he becomes adult. He sent him to school while my mum linked him up with a job in an oil company. This Uncle of mine doesn't not send any of us, including my mum and his brother my father. We his niece and nephew are suffering with no help in sight. Don't you think we have a right to tell him to his face that he's wicked?

The world is now different o.
Even your uncle is struggling to survive in a space where resources are scarce

honesttalk21:


This is the show I ask of. Does this equate asking for evidence? Show or discuss your claim. Keep your following questions until after this is done.

Despite Allah being described as existing above the heavens, this elevated position does not confine Allah's boundless nature.

Allah being above the heavens, refers to a position that surpasses all material and earthly constraints. This placement is not meant to indicate confinement but serves to emphasize Allah's separation from earthly matters and his elevated status.

I have ALREADY discussed my claims with you sir
1. Islamic scholars insist that Allah is NOT a Spirit and that the spirit is created by Allah. I gave you a Fatwa as an example. Even you have agreed with their submissions about Allah. Is Allah created!? You answer is NO! But is the Spirit created!? YES!

The implication is that Allah CANNOT be described as a SPIRIT.
Secondly, if Allah is NOT a spirit, he cannot be a boundless spirit.

2. Is it untrue that Mohammed described the seven heavens as physically above the earth with the subsequent one higher that the previous heaven and that Allah is ABOVE the highest heavens on his throne.

Is it untrue that Mohammed promised that you Muslims will see Allah at about the day of resurrection?

These two show that Allah is NOT boundless. Allah is finite, that is why he is above the heavens And can be seen by Muslims