the guvnor: Oscar mayer weiner mobile. Whatever the hell that is

+10

OP please stop with this your lies and emotional blackmail. You obviously speaking out of some figments of your imaginations or your malice. I'd watched this video over and over and no where did Oshiomole say to the woman "Go and die!!!"

Oshiomole's words sound more like: "When your husband die, you want to kill people on the road..." The issue seems to be that she put her goods on the road rather than off the road(pedestrian path)

What you are doing is nothing but slandering.

harbiola1:

^^^ The above is the definition of "Polytheism" (associating partners with God) which attracts the most several punishments from All-Might God.

Not that i'm mocking, i'm a muslim and i'll never mock Jesus(as). I'm only defending those barbaric words, actions that was attributed to him.

Only if u can exchange just three posts with me, i think u'll understand better.

Okay, I explain to you: The christian scripture says: God is a spirit. By Spirit it does not mean some Ghost entity like religions define it, rather Spirit means a mindset, a law-system, a behavioral-system or value-system; So though there may be multiple persons\entities, they all have the same or one spirit or behaviour(value system). Therefore when we say GOD IS ONE, we mean there is one, true spirit of God and it is ONLY by this spirit you can identify who is god and who is non-god.

So fine! it is polytheism in the secular sense of theism, but in the spiritual interpretation God is one, being that the spirit is the true definition of God, not the persons/entities.

^^^

What exactly are you here to do?? To make mockery or to really debate??

And as for "how did Jesus become God", What part of the other answer didn't you understand?? Is the son of God not God?? Has anybody claimed that jesus is God the father?? or you don't understand the difference between father and son?? Jesus became God because the father made him so, conferring upon him the same spirit and powers as himself. He is equal to the father in quality and quantity, thus making him God.

I know i'm probably "casting pearls to the swine..." but take it if you can, it takes only God to understand and therefore fulfill the laws of Moses which was the principal mission of Jesus. Having fulfilled and therefore abolished the law through his death, he has paved the way to make men(believers) Gods as well, equaling him and God the father in the same quality and quantity. So not only is Jesus God, but also as many as have the understanding and belief in this new righteousness of God have also become equal to God.

All this talk, yet no single "smart ass" here has bothered to expand on what "OLX" stands for

The first question to consider before determining the position of masturbation is "What is fornication or sexual immorality"? If fornication is sexual relations without marriage, then all forms of masturbation where the object of your fantasy is not your wife/husband is fornication. This is why the christ embassy's doctrine of "masturbation is not sin" is absolute rubbish, dishonest and a perversion of doctrine because it directly sanctions sexual activity towards people you are not married to. The same goes for all the churches who say it is okay to watch p0rn.

Having said this; my own christian doctrine does not define fornication as sexual relations outside of a legal marriage. Hence masturbation cannot be sin to me. *enjoyment galore*

Dustbin!!

Ukuts gp: but i dnt support sending people home.

Ok, reward them then.

You can't be playing politics with your principles/doctrines. If you consider such dressing indecent, then ban them, simples!!! Playing lukewarm with your doctrines will not make you grow spiritually, will not earn you respect, and before you know it you'd gone from running a church to running a carnival.

jayriginal:


The DJ okeyxyz remix.

GBAM!!! I too bad(Genius)

jayriginal:

No, I wont go into tithing and such with you. Thats not exactly in focus here.

Now see the bolded? From my understanding it implies subjectivity. Something like "be it according to your faith" or whatever you believe applies to you.

Now look at the italized below again


Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Doesnt look like anyone is excluded from this. Is the above not found in the bible?

Is there another interpretation other than the obvious?

Is a christian not a christian because he/she holds some different beliefs from you?

I see where you are coming from, and this is a majority interpretation. however, being majority does not make it truth. There is a reason christianity is regarded as spiritual instead of pure-literal and this is emphasized quite well in the scriptures. To be spiritual implies having consciousness and interpretations beyond the mere-literal. Not that christians should not recognize literal(or secular) knowledge and laws but that they should understand to keep them separate, blah blah blah.

Back to your instance above, A believer is not merely someone who believes in the literal sense of belief, rather it is someone who practices an established doctrine, hence the question of faith. Faith is not a belief(again, as the world understands it to be), faith is a substance(practice, demonstration) of an established doctrine/message. A practicer is the true believer. So Jesus says: All who practices(believes) his teachings will be saved and those who after believing yet fails to practice will be condemned.

Furthermore: You cannot take any of Jesus's teachings literally, and I mean Any!!!, though when taken literally they make sense, sounds good and commendable and is why everybody loves Jesus, whether they are christians or not, because his words appeals to everybody when taken literally/secularly. But within this literalness is hidden the true gospel of christianity, and it is given to a few to understand this fact. Jesus taught in parables deliberately for the purpose of hiding the true meanings of the subjects he speaks about. The apostle Paul makes emphasis that people who take the law(and Jesus's teachings) literally will surely miss the message, and this includes the majority of people.

jayriginal:

Lol. Calm down. Dont bust a blood vessel.

The point you seem to be missing and which I had tried to subtly pass across to you is that people hold all kinds of differing beliefs, even among christians.

For instance, there are christians who insist on tithing and christians who dont. Christians who believe in the trinity and christians who dont. Christians who believe their denominations are the truth and christians who dont.

Coming back home, there are christians who believe in hell and christians who dont.

Now, go back again and read my replies to you. Maybe you will see the light.

Perhaps I should elucidate a bit further.

You dismissing me as a non-christian was wrong. Furthermore you stated that christianity doesnt make any such claim. That is untrue and for that reason, I said

If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

I remember taking this up with JoshTheFirst. Same verses I posted here and he was contradicting himself.

#I did not make a mistake in "dismissing" you in the first place. Christianity or any discipline or profession has rules and mandates for it's believing/practicing members. There is no where in the bible that stipulates any christian doctrine for non-christians. The fact that people misunderstand or misapply/misuse christianity does not change the original truth of it. Whoever preaches tithes, then it is binding on tithe believers. Whoever preaches the law of Moses, then it is binding on law believers. Likewise, christianity as a whole is binding on people who believe themselves to be christians. If you disagree with me on these, then perhaps you should point them out from christian scriptures.

@OP, bad analogy. Not only is it bad analogy but also evidence that you are probably lost in your attempt to figure out the story and morals of adam & eve in the bible. So this weak attempt to re-tell it in a lion story is just your way of dealing with(actually suppressing ) the fact that you are unable to dig deep and present a proper critique that is worthy of serious debate. So this OP is DOA and i'm treating it as a caricature, as that is the only class of writing it qualifies as.

^^^^
WTF!!!! What is this How does the quotes(never mind that the guy is almost an 1d1ot..) above beat or counter my claim that non-christians are are not threatened with hell in christian doctrine?? That you even summon his quotes jokes as your argument speaks a lot about your own level understanding. Perhaps you should re-introduce yourself to me, because I'd assumed you could make a smart argument. I don't even read that guy's posts, his interpretations are always silly to say the least. i'm guessing he's a 13-year old boy because that's the only way one could hold such kind of religious beliefs.

GeneralShepherd:

When God says I am said the same yesterday, today and forever, His words are binding! Even God said He can only swear by His words!!

If God chose Israel and decides to choose the church aka gentiles in the New Testament then God has changed.

Even in the bible God changed all the time

Genesis 6 vs 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart

Why would an all knowing unchangeable God repent?

Great question the way you put it. But christians generally fail to answer this question, because they do not understand, they take it too literally.

Now when we say God cannot change, it simply means he abides absolutely by his word until it is fulfilled. ie: If God makes a promise or a law then such word is a debt and he is bound to keep(fulfill) it. So after he has fulfilled(paid the debt) the word, he is no longer bound by it because he has delivered on the promise of his word. If he'd failed to deliver on the promise, then he can be regarded as someone who has changed and is a liar and untrustworthy. Thus the saying:

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?(Numbers 23:19)

This is also the principle for the abolishing of the law of Moses. Jesus has fulfilled it, therefore it is no longer binding after it is fulfilled.

...not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished(Matthew 5:18)

Pastor Olu T: If you know you possess the intellectual skills to unravel mysteries, then you are in the right place. I will really want to see atheists (Logicboy n co) here 'cos they claim to get it all together! Now to the puzzle;

Supposing you suddenly meet yourself at a junction of two roads, one leading to life, enjoyment with all the goodies of life, and one leading to death, destruction and a dead, but you dont know which is which. Also at the start of each roads stood two angels/men, one for each roads. One of the angel/man always say the truth no matter what, while the the other is the opposite, always lying, but you also dont know which is which.

And its a must you take one of the roads, but you are only entitled to ask one of the angels/men ONLY ONE QUESTION, but dont know their true identities.

This is the mystery, WHAT WOULD YOUR QUESTION BE, remember just only one which is irreversible?

I'd Simply ask: "what color is your clothe??", since the good guy/angel will always tell the truth and the bad guy/angel can't help lying so I'd know from the one answer. Simples!!

Ajuran: Am not gonna say Somali. And you can't say your own ethnicity. List yours, mine is,

1. Afar they inhabit Somali, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti. They Speak a Cushitic language and are very closely related to Somalis. The following are pictures of Afar women in tradition attire.

Obviously you don't know anything about culture. You say absolutely nothing about these people besides showing us pictures. You don't tell us their value-system, mythology, history, their language and social structure, child-rearing practices, their religions, etc. Absolute Nothing!! And you ask "Who has the best culture??" WTF!!!

Why is it that whenever somebody says "culture" all we(africans??) think about is dressing-up and dancing?? Even animals dress-up and dance, so how have you differentiated yourself from animals to show that you have culture?? Mtcheww!!!

jayriginal:

Ah, no. Not at all. You dont even seem to have read what I wrote neither did you get the implication of my last post.

For you to say that christianity does not say non believers goes to hell without qualification tells me that arguing with you will be pointless.

Your last sentence validates me further. For one, I spoke of merely asking for proof. It was that part that you took issues with and you said this



And I stated a claim which you denied. Im very content to leave it at that. To do otherwise will involve loads of typing which I am not ready for especially given your response. My response is appropriate considering the unseriousness of yours. I dont even need to reference the bible for this one. However let me indulge you a little.

I hope I will not be required to explain the following to you:

Righteousness is said to be like filthy rags (doing good for goods sake) to God
Jesus declared himself the way the truth and light and the only path to God
Jesus said that all who believe in him and are baptised will be saved and those who didnt will be condemned

Now again, flowing from your earlier (disappointing) response, nowhere is it written in the bible to eat starch and banga soup. Think about it.


No be everything them dey tell person.


PS:
If you want to make your point, you have to be prepared to define christianity, tell us who is a christian and of course inform of us the qualifications for hell.

This is just beneath me and is the reason I ignored this post in the first place. But as the thread has been resurrected and I'm in a good mood. So this is my challenge to you: If you want to engage in a debate then just declare your readiness to exchange and keep your opponent ready. But your writing above is unimpressive and boring. You first start off by saying it would be needless repetition and waste of time to engage me, then suddenly turn against your statement by shooting off some arguments and challenges towards me. It's like somebody confronting you for a fight and you say: you don't want to fight, you don't want no trouble, but at the same time you are throwing jabs, uppercuts and hooks. it's just unsportsmanly and cowardly.

So bros, choose a position and stick to it, then I'd learn to take you serious.

.

Actually, there's no such thing as a "Born-again christian". To be born-again is to become a christian and you are a christian only after you are born-again.

This whole confusion( and lie) of "Born-again christian" is the result of misunderstanding, misapplication and corruption of the doctrines of christianity through the ages. Now it is assumed that if your parents are christians, then you are born a christian, but this is a lie. You cannot be born a christian. Christianity is a self-willed effort in the belief and practice christian doctrine. You can only become a christian through being born-again, ie: believing the claim that Christ's death and resurrection has taken away your sins(of The Law).

^^^^
What the heck are you on about?? Okay I challenge you to name one stimilus reaction that is not geared towards the interest and preservation of a conscious/living entity. Whether reflex or post-contemplative reaction the bottom line is that it serves the preservative interest of a consciousness entity. Response to stimulus is about the only objective evidence of life/consciousness, or at least a residue life/consciousness.

Even the words you use to make your arguments(ie: ...preconceived mechanical reactions...) suggest that reflex action are derived from conscious, contemplated purposes.

^^^^

So tell us, what other types of entities respond to stimuli if not living/conscious ones?? There has to first be an awareness of self which would then determine if the stimulus is friendly or hostile. You disagree??

AjanleKoko:
Some years back, there was this Chevron recruitment for OND-qualified engineers. I know of at least five people who were actually university graduates, but because they had earlier acquired an OND, they were able to get in. Ironic, isn't it?

But they'd met the requirements for this job, having acquired OND's. But it seems you are trying to argue that their B.Sc's now invalidates their OND credentials. No??

Kay 17:

Considering the fact that Consciousness is an intrinsic fact, a fact only avail able to the Conscious being itself; wouldn't it be beyond you to claim absolutely that there isn't artificial consciousness?!

This question has already been hacked before it was concluded. Who the heck are the two jokers who liked this post?? I'm guessing @plaeteon was one.

We may not be able to pinpoint the intrinsic consciousness of another entity but it's consciousness is very evident in that every living thing responds to stimuli, whether hostile or friendly(read my response to @plaetton's question on virus). Now we know the difference between a dead body from a living one in that the living one responds to stimuli. The dead body cannot respond because it's consciousness has been separated from it.

So we may not know what another entity might be thinking but we can be sure it is alive and thus conscious. GBAM!!!

PhenomenonVFX: Personally, the day I will stop believing in the possibility of "conscious" computers is the day we build computers that perfectly replicate the human brain and then nothing comes of it and the computers just remain good old electronic chips.
But even if we manage to create "conscious" computers inadvertently or otherwise, it still wont still stop me from believing in God though.

Look, I might be able to agree with you that there is consciousness in inanimate objects but that'd be taking it on the level of religion and spirituality. But you trying to hinge this on science?? Bros, you are on your own.

plaetton:

Thanks again.
After engaging with these guys for a while, I begin to question my own sanity.
With your posts so far,Ii am convinced that I am indeed the sane one talking to a bunch of deaf and dumb.


I have stated it before on this forum that in Quantum Physics, the line between science and spirituality becomes increasingly blurred.
Phenomena was once termed spiritual may now be explained in purely Quantum mechanical terminology.

Even in the human brain, thoughts and consciousness, are now being looked as arising from quantum mechanical processes in the brain.
So if computers begin to Quantum compute, then viola, conscious computers may now be conceptually probable.

That is is just extrapolation from simple common sense.

One delusion validating another delusion

You obviously have no technical background, that's why you are jumping and applauding another man's fantasies.

PhenomenonVFX:

okay I didnt see this before my first reply to u.
Let me break things down further.
There is something called Run-time game playing or so. I cant remember exactly now. This is when a computer actually learns the rules for interaction with opponents after the game has started. Now it is about a computer learning whatsoever rule a game is working with by using techniques far beyond statistical AI.

#This is misleading, bordering on a lie. No known computer system today is capable of learning anything beyond it's programming. The illustration you used above in the game of chess is just a computer mapping inputs(from the opposing player) to all possible outcomes, then making decisions based on several preprogrammed parameters. Again, to the ordinary, untrained mind this looks like some personality or awareness exhibited by the computer but it's all preprogrammed set of actions. This is simulated learning.

Now back to preprogrammed computers. The day a preprogrammed computer begins to function beyond the limits of its programming and probably possess an ability to reprogram itself, that will be the day.
Now I consider the above in the realm of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is bizzare and almost "spiritual" to some people. In that realm of physics, it is said that even the human mind can affect the outcome. It provides us with even a higher probability of computers running beyond the limits of their programming.

#Again, another misleading information. It is true that the observing human mind can influence the behaviour of subatomic particles. The key here is the human mind, but you are already assuming that there is an artificial mind(again with no evidence whatsoever) to exercise the same influence as a human. Please tell us, where has any instance of an artificial mind been observed/documented?? absolutely Nowhere, yet you come here declaring that computers will do this and do that on their own accord without human influence.

Lets look at evolution for instance. It can be argued that evolution is just another way whereby living organisms run beyond the limits of their "program" in order to survive. They improvise new genetic codes and adaptation for continuity.

#Oh please!!! Nowhere has DNA been observed to mutate or evolve. Every known instance of DNA recoding has all been human induced.

Imagine the future where we have computers running on giga or tera-qubits of processing power. Also using stochastic and non-deterministic execution techniques unlike the computers of nowadays. Would it be possible for them to run beyond the limits of their programming which has quantum possibilities, reprogram themselves and suddenly be possible for the machines to come alive and say "corgito, ergo sum!!!"? Well I dont know. But some scientists seem to think so. They even believe it will be possible to transfer human consciousness into machines.

#Mehn!! I'm already tired of reading this arguments. You seem to be plucking concepts from fantasy but presenting them as science facts. I'm beginning to feel I'd wasted precious time with the attention I'd already devoted to this article alone. Oh well, I'm at the end, so I might just as well round it up.

U really should try reading Xenocide. It gives a mind-boggling treatise about how consciousness can be formed in an artificial network connection.

#I talk am You really are hanging all your bets on fictional characters, events and concepts.

haywhy28: Why does disease, natural disaster, divorce, rejection ; death, some other sorrow seep into our lives when we are trying to serve God? It just doesn't seem fair!
Those occasion when it just doesn't seem to add up,when it seems God doesn't make sense, what do you do? Do you think he doesn't care? Do you think God is wicked? Do you let go your faith? Please lets hear your views

You are disappointed because you do not understand the God you serve or he does not exist.

Diseases and natural disasters are meant to be treated or precautions taken against them. It makes no sense to handle them with faith if you have not received the explicit word of faith that you can heal/handle them. So until this explicit word of faith comes to you, you should do the normal, secular systems established by man to handle your disease and natural disasters.

As per divorce, well, I'm not a believer in marriage. Marriage is simply an option, not a spiritual mandate. The marriage we know is just a tradition of men to own one another and a way to deal with their insecurities and mortalities.

Concerning death, untimely death does not come to anyone who knows his God and follows him. So it must be that such a person does not understand his God or does not follow his God.

plaetton:

I think I lost you once you mentioned that the people in video are out to trick you with trick words.

So if you don't like what they are saying, then they must be telling lies.
You now know more than they do on this subject, right?
Typical example of irrational hostility towards scientific thinking.
Na wa.
I tire o.
I sincerely apologize for engaging you in this discussion.

So in your understanding, a baby is nothing but a robot such as the one demonstrated n the video abi chei!!! bros, you need to track back your thoughts and beliefs before you fall-off the cliff.

And i say again; the language they use in the documentary is a trick language, aka public relations and salesmanship. They have to cajole the simple minded public about the wonders and excellence of their inventions so as to keep the funding pool from drying up. If this claims are actually breakthroughs in the achievement of artificial consciousness, perhaps you can point us to the research documentations and peer reviews that validate them.

plaetton:

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1

Well, according to what is asserted in this video, a robot, rather than being programmed with data, has been designed to learn and adapt in the same way that infants learn and adapt.

Mehn!! I laugh at the simple gimmicks and tricks used to entrap people of simple(non-technical) understanding

This robot has simply been programmed to carry out a set of technical procedures and tests on objects around itself, then make evaluations based on internally programmed calibrations(am I losing you already? ). Like I said before, this is a simulation of child like behaviours, not the demonstration of the actual behaviours and learnings processes themselves. Because you are non-technical, you are unable to discern the absence of the most basic entity of life/consciousness which is self!! Even as a non-science analyst, how do you miss this entity called self that philosophy teaches?? Because everything a baby learns is in relation to itself, that's why a baby wants to eat everything it sees, because eating is about the only pleasure and values it understands at the moment. So it keeps trying to eat everything until it understands that some are palatable and the rest are not or are even harmful to itself. Again, self-awareness and self preservation in play.

A baby is always constantly self aware and every learning it acquires is first in relation to itself, whether such experience is good for itself or bad for itself. It sees it's mother as a provider and protector so it would naturally cry when it perceives that it's mom has abandoned it, it perceives a threat when in the company of non familiar members. A baby believes that it can fly until it gets hurt in it's first attempt at flight. Do you see how it's efforts, experiences and understandings all revolve around it's own selfishness? So how does this robot acquire these attributes then?

These guys claiming that the robot learns like a baby is just a trick language they use to capture the imaginations and fascinations of the untrained(which clearly you are ). You cannot learn like a baby if you cannot have the simple self-awareness and selfish interests and almost absolute gullibility of a baby.

I believe I deserve a round of applause

tpia1: so, how far?

Cheii, after 2 years!!

plaetton:

My dear friend,
It is not a matter of whether this particular robot is fully conscious or not, or meets our criterias or not.
No.
It is about " proof of concept".

Consciousness entails this , entails that, and entails that.
Sure.
The question is about the possibility of an artificial construct having all the above attributes in the future.
And I can you that, you sir, are in no position to say what is scientifically or technologically possible today, or in the near or distant future.



In view of how far humanity has come in just over the past 200yrs, I would urge you , sir, to refrain from making absolute statements about what is possible and what is not possible.

More so, I find it particularly hilarious that people who engage in all sorts of magical thinking(religion) would turn around to make absolute statements about what is scientifically possible and what is not.
That is just laughable.
On what grounds do you make the absolute assertion that there is no such thing as artificial consciousness?

You statement would be a bit palatable if you had added the word "Yet" at the end.

Back in the early 1900s, the head of the U.S patent office recommended that the patent office be closed because , according to him , and I quote,

" Everything that needs to be invented has already been invented."

Can you see how wrong he was 100yrs ago?

If you are following developments in patent applications, you would realize that , technologically, we are still in the dark ages compared to what is in the future.

What you call consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence, etc are simply unique frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Biological species reach these various stages when the electrical activity in their brains or neural networks reach a unique mathematical threshold of oscillation.

In other words, my friend, your thoughts can be hacked. The technology and the patents currently exists.

I dont know if you have bothered to notice that computers have tended to perform more complex task with the increase in processor speeds.
Have you?

Now, what is the fasted computing speed currently?
Now multiply that by , say, 100 fold.
Now, again, what is the maximum processing speed for a processor?
As afar as we know, infinity.

If computing power continues to increase exponentially for infinity, there would definitely reach a threshold point where it's frequency would attain the frequency threshold of thoughts, consciousness, and self-awareness.
That is almost as certain as the sun sun coming up tomorrow.

" To understand the Universe, you simply need to understand Frequency, all is Frequency" -- Nicholi Telsa

Boy oh boy!!! So you can assume to open your mind to possibilities, concepts and unknowns, yet you are so sure of the impossibility of God or the divine??

I have not gone astray in any way by what I said that "There is no such thing as artificial consciousness". I'm assuming your are trying to make a scientific argument here, so where is the proof of concept by which you quickly judged that a computer program was conscious? Where is the demonstration or scientifc theory that we can use to project or speculate into the future on the possibility of achieving artificial consciousness? You have not even one proof or testable theory to scientifically initiate life from non-life, yet you are already projecting..., based on what?? How is this science? At best this is fantasy and fiction. You may deride religious people all you want but you have just demonstrated the same attributes for which you deride them. You have no basis for this projection, what you have here is a belief system. And when I said: "There is no such thing as artificial consciousness", it was absolute and very correct in it's context. It is very obvious that I was referring the world we know at present, of course I couldn't have been making a statement for future possibilities or impossibilities. How you are able to filter-in or filter-out any futures from my statement is beyond me

So if life is frequency as you attempt to argue here, why is it that no one has been able to identify and isolate any particular frequency as "The life frequency or particle"?? It's not as if we are still searching for frequencies, are we?? Every physical entity is frequency and every physical entity/phenomenon is identifiable by it frequency(s). But life/consciousness on the other hand, though very evident through frequencies, yet not identifiable or isolateable, which would suggest that perhaps consciousness is not physical, Don't you think?? You can reel out the many attributes and evidences of life but no one has yet identified that unique entity that constitutes or emanates life. It is true that life/consciousness manifests physically as frequency but it is yet to be observed that frequency is life. Frequency has not been observed to originate consciousness, therefore it is absolutely wrong for anyone to continue to argue without evidence that consciousness is frequency. It's like saying: because I have legs to move about, therefore I am a leg. It doesn't make sense. A leg moving is evidence of somebody alive and using the leg to move about, but then separate the leg from the person and this leg is useless, without consciousness nor purpose, while the person who has been separated from his leg is still alive, conscious and continues his purpose. So makes no sense to say the frequency is live, as frequency cannot be conscious nor function on it's own, just as the leg cannot be conscious nor function on it's own.

plaetton:

Not what I had expected, but great answer.

That's because the boy(moi) is smart

So I guess I should have added to the questions whether a virus is sentient.
Is it?

If it's living, it sentient