StillDtruth:


Were you not corrected that no one from our side made that claim?

Does the thread not show that you are the one who made ithat claim? Then you are the one to answer it , not us!

. Continue to lie to yourself that you didn't define spirit and be happy with that.

TenQ:

Go take care of yourself!

Your advice isn't needed. Use it yourself

budaatum:


There. Though Unknown's defines it better, as does wiki.

So as we can see touch is the central characteristic for determing if it is tangible or not. A mirror's image is NOT tangible since it cannot be touched. Even Wiki gives touch as central to it being tangible or not.

budaatum:


There. Though Unknown's defines it better, as does wiki.

Another example. If I physical was with you and spoke to you would you call my words you are hearing tangible?

budaatum:

And why is it a problem whether I perceive a software code with another software or not?

I equally can not perceive a virus unless I use a device to perceive it, but you would not claim the virus does not exist because I can not perceive it with my naked eye. Or would you?

But you admit that it takes another software to be able to view or interact with a software within the hardware of an AI machine.
This is sufficient!

budaatum:

Please just listen to the gibberish you wrote there!

You call it "INFORMATION, DATA and INSTRUCTIONS", and yet claim it does not produce an action! Did you write the software so badly that it produced no action?

An action is produced if information instructs!

Your machine will return an error code If your instruction were gibberish.

Your problem is that as a lay man, you are splashing about thinking you know something while you know nothing.

Softwares in a machine do NOT do anything: it is the Hardware in the Machine that does things. It is the hardware that switches, turns on, varies signal. it doesn't even UNDERSTAND the signal it is receiving. It is a dumb slave.

The fact that you have never programed a computer is glaring!

budaatum:

Interesting. Does the fact that Bobrisky is released following Tinubu's given instruction not in effect mean that Tinubu's instruction has been handled?

If the information was not tangible, it would not have been perceived at all, and would be the equivalent of Tinubu just thinking the instruction in his head without making it tangible for anyone to hear it and be instructed by it so they can handle it.

Tinubu's instruction can only be handled if he makes his instruction perceivable to the senses Otherwise, you would need software to read Tinubu's mind.

Tell me then how you can quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time. ANYTHING that is tangible can be characterised with this.

Over to you?

budaatum:

I agree. The information is the message conveyed by the ink and the language and the style, all of which are what make the information tangible. If you were just thinking it in your head, your message would be intangible to me, but it could still be argued that it is tangible to only you.

This, by the way, would be the logical argument of a person who claims they perceive spirits. The spirit is real and tangible to those who perceive spirits, but intangible and unreal to an atheist who doesn't.

Leave out spirits from this. We are talking for now on things we should both scientifically agree on as facts.
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding is slowing everything down

If it is true that:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

What then is the TANGIBLE instruction given by Tinubu on Paper?

budaatum:

Not necessarily. The fire alarm in a burning building is conveying information regardless of your ability to decode the information and receive the message conveyed or not.

I could write this information you are currently readind in Hindu, which I doubt you can read. But your inability to decode it does not mean it is not information. It would just mean that you are not informed by it since you can not decode it.

Do you concur that sa long as an information is NOT decodable by a person, to him, it is just gibberish!

Do you agree that if you do not understand English language, then there is no difference between
1. The Rain in Spain falls mainly in the Plain
and
2. Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!

budaatum:

And this just proves the point, which is that you have conveyed information in your post, whether I understand it or not.
What makes it information is the fact that you have made it tangible so you can transmit it to me so I can read it and be informed by it.
You inform with it by placing it in a dimension and infuse it with Energy so it can be observed in Time, which is your definition of tangible.

I would not have this particular information in this post to handle if you you had not made it tangible for me to handle it with my senses, as I have very clearly done.

Your lack of experience with programming and understanding how a computer work is a limitation to this discussion.


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

Can you bring yourself to understand this?

TenQ:

But you admit that it takes another software to be able to view or interact with a software within the hardware of an AI machine.
This is sufficient!


Your problem is that as a lay man, you are splashing about thinking you know something while you know nothing.

Softwares in a machine do NOT do anything: it is the Hardware in the Machine that does things. It is the hardware that switches, turns on, varies signal. it doesn't even UNDERSTAND the signal it is receiving. It is a dumb slave.

The fact that you have never programed a computer is glaring!


Tell me then how you can quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time. ANYTHING that is tangible can be characterised with this.

Over to you?



Leave out spirits from this. We are talking for now on things we should both scientifically agree on as facts.
Unfortunately, your lack of understanding is slowing everything down

If it is true that:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

What then is the TANGIBLE instruction given by Tinubu on Paper?


Do you concur that sa long as an information is NOT decodable by a person, to him, it is just gibberish!

Do you agree that if you do not understand English language, then there is no difference between
1. The Rain in Spain falls mainly in the Plain
and
2. Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!



Your lack of experience with programming and understanding how a computer work is a limitation to this discussion.


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

Can you bring yourself to understand this?

This is amazing. I admit that you are very skilled at obfuscation. You should take up the preacher profession.

TenQ:

Why are you this elusive?

Again my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?



Otherwise, admit that you are a bunch of good for nothing noise makers!

Just seeing this. I'm not a computer scientist but a physician, so I'm slightly incapacitated in this but I'll attempt
1. Yes, it doesn't exist
2. Softwares can be seen with the eyes. So yes, its real
3. Since they can be seen, their existence can be appraised
4. I don't know about quantifying softwares but as long as it can be seen, manipulated, stored(as kb/mb etc) they can be termed to exist
5. My above depositions have answered these inane questions.
Got any more stupid queries?

TenQ:

People who have nothing to hide NEVER will have a problem answering this questions except delusional people who bark like muzzled rabid dogs: empty barrels that make all the big noises.

Thanks Mr Aemmyjah, but let it come from their own mouths.

Dummy, I have answered your retarded friend

Aemmyjah:


Jaephoenix
LordReed

Come and confirm this statement from someone of same IQ as yours
Is this true?

Bwahahahahahaha

Softwares can be seen. Are you also blind and retarded?

budaatum:

TenQ, please read me carefully.

A string of text is not information. Your response to me is not just a string of text, but text that has meaning, and the fact that it has meaning is what makes your post informative.

You will note that others are quoting me here but I am ignoring them. The reason is that their posts lack the depth of meaning and information that yours have, which is why I enjoy conversing with you.

Good. At least we agree that a string of text is NOT information until there is a shared formular to make sense of the string of characters.

budaatum:

The first sentence is not true. I may be stupid or unwilling to decode (understand) your string of text and it can still be information.

One may not know how to decode the information conveyed by a fire alarm in a burning building but the fire alarm is still conveying information, and those who call it gibberish are likely to end up dead!

Let me rephrase:
To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it"
Do you agree now with this?

This has nothing to do with whether the information is Ignored or rejected or misinterpreted.

budaatum:

I agree. But you may still write Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune! without giving me the code and still be conveying information. The only difference is that the information you would be conveying would not be decodable by me, and I might conclude that it is gibberish to me, but it is not necessarily gibberish to you who wrote it.

Basically, the lack of understanding does not mean a data is gibberish. One might just be stupid or ignorant or just not have the code.

I think it makes sense only to speak ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver in this case, a Computer.

I do not determine HOW information or instruction should be conveyed to the Computer: the hardware capability and the inherent program of the computer determines how information or instruction should be passed to the computer.

For instance:
Unless my computer through Microsoft WORD is configured to understand sign language, whatever I Instruct the computer in sign Language is meaningless except I type my Information through the Keyboard of the computer.

Thus my information is Gibberish to the computer UNLESS I can put it in the form the Computer can take!

budaatum:

Not true Tenq, that a "string of text is NOTHING without an agreed Code for decoding it". It just means that that string of text means nothing to the individual who does not have the code to decode it.

Neither of us went to school to learn Hindi, but I hope we would not claim a Hindi speaker is saying nothing because we can not decode it.

From the framework of the Computer or the point of view of the computer, whatever you say that is NOT in conformity with the syntax of the computer is Gibberish.

Can you run Microsoft Word on a Macintosh Computer ?
No!
Why?
Microsoft Word Software is Gibberish to the Mac Computer!

budaatum:

And I answered you. A Hindi speaker is not speaking gibberish just because we can not decode Hindi.

But from the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi
The information is USELESS to the Receiver without Interpretation.

budaatum:

Yes, "software for a Mac is meaningless for Android and is meaningless for a PC because the decoding the code is not standard between them", just as speaking Hindi to either of us would be meaningless to us. But that does not mean what the Hindi speaker is saying is meaningless, just as the software for a Mac is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean anything to the Android or the PC.

I may want to use Sign-Language to pass instruction to my Computer rather than the keyboard. Whatever is my informations is MEANINGLESS to the Computer.
My objective is NOT to claim that Informations is meaningless from the point of view of the speaker, but we have to look from the perspective of the Receiver. After all, it is the Receiver that is supposed to carry out the instruction.

Like I said before:
From the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi if he does not UNDERSTAND Hindi

budaatum:

But it must be tangible for it to be perceived by the machine!

The machine doesn't perceive anything sir!
The computer is a dummy!
The computer is NOT aware of anything!

budaatum:

Read what you wrote above please. The Mac software is meaningless to the PC and the Android because Mac software is not tangible to the Android and the PC.

Basically, the Android and the PC do not have the right 'senses' for the Mac software to be perceived by them.

True!

budaatum:

This question arose in the very early posts in this thread where it was assumed that ones must perceive with the naked eye. I suggest you go back and read it because I do fail to understand the importance of only perceiving with the naked eye or only physical means when one can enhance ones perception and then perceive.

You can very clearly perceive the effect of the software in the machine, just as you can clearly see the effect of electricity in the machine too. And you can take the software out of the machine and decompile it so you can perceive it, which is exactly what is done if one wants to debug the software.

A matter is tangible if it can be defined either by its Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time.

This definition takes care of even electrons (which is invisible to the naked eyes. It takes care of phonons which doesn't even have mass but has energy.
The problem is that you don't understand how data is stored in a computer or even processed.
There is NO difference between noise and data on the memory of a computer when viewed from the outside.

budaatum:

This is a senseless question since there are much better ways to prove the existence of software in a machine than the physical quantification of a software within a machine. But if you do want to physically quantify a software in a machine to see if it exists, you can very easily check if the software is on the harddrive.

My question was specific and it was designed to prove a point.
The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?


I didn't say you intend to quantify a software by physical means.

budaatum:

I agree. And that is the reason why I have not insisted anywhere that anyone should "INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist"!

That said, if you check for the software on the harddrive of the machine, albeit with other software as opposed to with the naked eye, you might be able to see if the software is in the machine or not.

Yes, it can only be done with other softwares.

budaatum:

This part, however, is not true.

If the software does what the software is written to do, one may conclude the software is in the machine. Also, one can check the harddrive of the machine to see if the software is installed on it. And both are valid "physical" means of verification.

A software exist in the machine BUT there is no known physical means by which it can be verified. If you know of a procedure, please tell me now.

budaatum:

Just as it is impossible to see a virus with the naked eye, I suppose, but as said, why would I limit myself to perceiving with the naked eye when I can enhance my perception with aids (software) so I can see better?

A Virus has a mass, it has a dimension, thus it is TANGIBLE!

budaatum:

I think it is time for me to tell you that I will tell you no such thing since I do not intend to "prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software".

If there is no software in the machine, the machine itself will tell you there is no software in it as soon as you switch it on and ask the software that is not in it to do what you wrote the software to do in the machine.

If you don't have Microsoft Word in your machine, any attempt to open and run and use Microsoft Word on that machine will fail, and that should be sufficient evidence that Microsoft Word might not be on that particular machine. Of course it might be that you did put Microsoft Word on the machine, in which case I'd expect you'd check the hard drive to see whether it is installed properly or not, but asking to do that "without the use of another software" is like asking to do so without electricity or a battery and just by looking at the hardware, which is stupid if nothing else.

I guess you don't understand what is meant by physical means. It means with equipment that will determine either its mass or dimension or energy with respect to time.

What is matter?
Because matter is tangible!

budaatum:


I'm afraid the correction is wrong.

Touch is not the only sense.

I have defined "tangibles" as precisely as possible: anything that has either mass or dimension or energy is tangible!

budaatum:


The image in a mirror is tangible because it can be perceived with the senses.

Does an image have a mass?
Does and image have a size or apparent size?
Does an image have energy?

jaephoenix:

Just seeing this. I'm not a computer scientist but a physician, so I'm slightly incapacitated in this but I'll attempt
1. Yes, it doesn't exist

Wrong.
A software in a computer or Washing Machine exist but it cannot be seen nor touched

jaephoenix:

2. Softwares can be seen with the eyes. So yes, its real

Softwares cannot be seen. What you see is the HDD or the flashdrive or the CD (the medium by which software is stored) but the software itself is invisible.

jaephoenix:

3. Since they can be seen, their existence can be appraised

They cannot be seen by any physical method sir. Thus they annot be physically qunatified in terms of mass, dimension or energy

jaephoenix:

4. I don't know about quantifying softwares but as long as it can be seen, manipulated, stored(as kb/mb etc) they can be termed to exist

The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?


It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person insist on physical quantification of a software to believe it exist

jaephoenix:

5. My above depositions have answered these inane questions.
Got any more stupid queries?

The Question was: 5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

There is no known method in the universe to prove the existence of a software within a machine except with another software.



You got your answers wrong because you did not know that the software of a computer is simply DATA and INSTRUCTIONS


Let me help you out


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

I hope you can understand this

KnownUnknown:


This is amazing. I admit that you are very skilled at obfuscation. You should take up the preacher profession.

Comprehend this:

INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

LordReed:


It is you who doesn't understand the implications of this answer:



to those questions. Think some more.

Why then is it difficult to answer these two questions


Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

TenQ:

Why then is it difficult to answer these two questions


Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

Because I already answered them.

TenQ:

Wrong.
A software in a computer or Washing Machine exist but it cannot be seen nor touched


Softwares cannot be seen. What you see is the HDD or the flashdrive or the CD (the medium by which software is stored) but the software itself is invisible.


They cannot be seen by any physical method sir. Thus they annot be physically qunatified in terms of mass, dimension or energy


The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?


It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person insist on physical quantification of a software to believe it exist



The Question was: 5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

There is no known method in the universe to prove the existence of a software within a machine except with another software.



You got your answers wrong because you did not know that the software of a computer is simply DATA and INSTRUCTIONS


Let me help you out


INFORMATION is REAL but not TANGIBLE
MATHEMATICS is REAL but not TANGIBLE
LOGIC is REAL but not TANGIBLE

I hope you can understand this

1. The output ie the display, is an evident of the software. It may not be the software itself but the fact that it emanates from the software, is in indication the software exists.
2. So what is the name of the entity that is measured in kb and stored in the flash drive?
3. Softwares can be made, stored and destroyed. They even have partitions in the storage media where they reside, so yes, they can be located. Even though we can't touch or hear them, we can interface with them via the visual output
4. We can see the visual output of the software. I can store it on a flash, copy and paste it in any media. So yes, I don't need anybody to convince me it exists. Its right in my flash drive, which is in my pocket
5. AI machines have interfaces their devs give instructions via the codes. These codes constitute the programs, I believe.
Like I said I'm not a computer scientist. But every endeavor of human existence works on logic
6. You are the ignorant and foolish one here who thinks we atheists would ask if softwares are real.
So why are these questions. I don't have the strength or time to start reading from page 1

triplechoice:
. Continue to lie to yourself that you didn't define spirit and be happy with that.

Now you are lying by changing post for badatom referred to your question."is a computer software a mental phenomenon or spirit?"and not my question surrounding my definition of spirit which all you atheists have run away from.

LordReed:


Another example. If I physical was with you and spoke to you would you call my words you are hearing tangible?

Yes I would. So long as I can use my ears to 'touch' the words you speak, your words are tangible.

Let me complicate it for you my Lord, to further confuse you.

The thoughts in my head are tangible to me because I can 'perceive' and feel my thoughts with my mind even though I can not touch my thoughts with my hands.

The thoughts in my head are intangible to you because you can not perceive or feel the thoughts in my mind.

TenQ:

Why then is it difficult to answer these two questions


Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

I as an atheist don't insist on physical quantification
Again I ask, what is the aim of all these questions

budaatum:


Yes I would. So long as I can use my ears to 'touch' the words you speak, your words are tangible.

Let me complicate it for you my Lord, to further confuse you.

The thoughts in my head are tangible to me because I can 'perceive' and feel my thoughts with my mind even though I can not touch my thoughts with my hands.

The thoughts in my head are intangible to you because you can not perceive or feel the thoughts in my mind.

U r using tangible in a different context here

jaephoenix:

U r using tangible in a different context here

Yes, I indeed am. And thank you very much for noticing what many others are refusing to notice.

If they step out of the narrow context they are in, they'd see it too.

TenQ:

I have defined "tangibles" as precisely as possible: anything that has either mass or dimension or energy is tangible!

You left out time!

There is 'energy' (information) in your words (string of letter that are not random and have meaning).

The energy in your words is what I am responding to.

Your words are in a dimension of here.

Your words are being read at time now.

If you had not imbued your words with dimension and energy and time so I can read them, your words would be intangible to me.

The only reason I am not stating that your words have mass is because you would likely ask how many grams your words weigh.

Think Einstein's Relativity. It might help you comprehend the information that I am conveying to you tangibly.

budaatum:


Yes I would. So long as I can use my ears to 'touch' the words you speak, your words are tangible.

Let me complicate it for you my Lord, to further confuse you.

The thoughts in my head are tangible to me because I can 'perceive' and feel my thoughts with my mind even though I can not touch my thoughts with my hands.

The thoughts in my head are intangible to you because you can not perceive or feel the thoughts in my mind.

No my dear buda, how can you say sounds are tangible. Just make a sentence with it. I heard his tangible sounds coming from next door. C'mon!

TenQ:

Good. At least we agree that a string of text is NOT information until there is a shared formular to make sense of the string of characters.

It would seem that you do not have the right decoder. If you had, you would not claim we agree on the bold.

I have told you that a fire alarm that goes off in a building is conveying information whether you know what the fire alarm is telling you or not. I also said that you would not claim a person speaking Hindi is not conveying information just because you don't understand Hindi. So how can you possibly claim that you must understand the data you are giving for it to be information?

Is everything you have written in this thread lack information if I don't understand a word you wrote?

TenQ:
Let me rephrase:
To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it"
Do you agree now with this?

I 100% agree that To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded.

To the transmitter, the string of text has information, unless the transmitter intentionally writes gibberish, which I credit you for not doing.

TenQ:

This has nothing to do with whether the information is Ignored or rejected or misinterpreted.

This is somehow, TenQ.

If the receiver Ignores or rejects or misinterprets the information it is given, then the receiver will receive no information. That, however, does not mean "The string of text is NO information".

You can write the above in perfect Hindi, and I who speaks no Hindi will not receive the information in your words. That does not therefore mean that there is no information in your words.

TenQ:
I think it makes sense only to speak ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver in this case, a Computer.

You are getting a lot warmer already, and I appreciate that you are.

You want to speak "ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver". I am not doing anything of the sort, even where computers are concerned. Please note.

TenQ:
I do not determine HOW information or instruction should be conveyed to the Computer: the hardware capability and the inherent program of the computer determines how information or instruction should be passed to the computer.

[i]You do not determine only because you did not write the software. If you had written the software you would know that you and only you determine what information and how the information is passed to the computer, so long as you make the software you write tangible (readable, perceptible) to the computer).

To say otherwise is to claim that I determine what and how you write what you write here, which clearly is not the case. If it were the case, I would determine that you stop arguing with me and just agree with me, but I am certain you would flex muscle and tell me not to tell you what to write here!

TenQ:
For instance:
Unless my computer through Microsoft WORD is configured to understand sign language, whatever I Instruct the computer in sign Language is meaningless except I type my Information through the Keyboard of the computer.

If you write you sign language to a computer that is not configured to understand sign language, you computer will fail to understand the message you are trying to convey to it in sign language, and it would be as pointless as speaking Hindi to buda.

TenQ:
Thus my information is Gibberish to the computer UNLESS I can put it in the form the Computer can take!

I agree that you information is Gibberish to the computer if your computer can not read sign language. That does not however mean that your sign language is gibberish. It just means your computer does not understand sign language and has no decoder to decode the information you fed it in sign language.

TenQ:
From the framework of the Computer or the point of view of the computer, whatever you say that is NOT in conformity with the syntax of the computer is Gibberish.

I agree that from the computer's framework, sign language will be gibberish to it. That does however mean that your sign language is gibberish. Just that you computer can not decode your sign language.

TenQ:
Can you run Microsoft Word on a Macintosh Computer ?
No!
Why?
Microsoft Word Software is Gibberish to the Mac Computer!

Yes. I can run Microsoft Word on a Mac. Google it if you don't know how!

TenQ:
But from the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi
The information is USELESS to the Receiver without Interpretation.

From the point of view of the receiver, I agree. The Hindi speaker conveying information in real Hindi would however not agree that they are speaking gibberish.

And I am not buying your "Gibberish Hindi" nonsense! If you speak gibberish English to me I would just stop conversing with you!

TenQ:
I may want to use Sign-Language to pass instruction to my Computer rather than the keyboard. Whatever is my informations is MEANINGLESS to the Computer.
My objective is NOT to claim that Informations is meaningless from the point of view of the speaker, but we have to look from the perspective of the Receiver. After all, it is the Receiver that is supposed to carry out the instruction.

It would be rather foolish of you to sign language to a computer that can not decode sign language.

If you had written this post in Hindi, you'd have wasted your time because it would be gibberish to me despite it likely not being gibberish to you who wrote it in Hindi.

TenQ:
Like I said before:
From the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi if he does not UNDERSTAND Hindi

I think you keep going on about this your "point of view of the Receiver" only because you are beginning to understand that there may be other points of view, like that of the information giver.

It is appreciated.

TenQ:
The machine doesn't perceive anything sir!
The computer is a dummy!
The computer is NOT aware of anything!

Lol!

If the computer does not understand sign language, I agree that the computer does not receive anything.

But if you write your software and compile it into the specific language the machine can decode, then not only will the computer be aware of the information you give it, it will also carry out any instruction that you coded into the software and fed to the machine.

TenQ:
A matter is tangible if it can be defined either by its Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time.

This is the point where I now inform you that your definition of tangible is very narrow, as is your idea of "Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time".

Hopefully, you can decode all I have said so far, and comprehend the information therein, and considered the definitions of tangible that I posted for my Lord.

Now, I got a meeting to go to. I will respond to your other post when I am done.

LordReed:


No my dear buda, how can you say sounds are tangible. Just make a sentence with it. I heard his tangible sounds coming from next door. C'mon!

You are very funny, my Lord.

You don't need to make a sentence about sounds you sense (touch) with your ears. The point is, if he had not made sounds that you could sense, hence that were tangible, you would not have heard him.

Note the below.

Something that's literally tangible can be touched. A rock is tangible, and so is a broken window; if the rock is lying next to the window, it could be tangible evidence of vandalism. When we say that the tension in a room is tangible, we mean we feel it so strongly that it seems almost physical. But if we're being literal, tension, like hope, happiness, and hunger, is literally intangible—it may be real, but it can't be touched. When lawyers talk about an intangible asset, they might mean something like a company's good reputation—very valuable, but not quite touchable.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible

You can not literally touch the "tension in a room". All you can do is sense and/or feel it, which, non-literally speaking, is the same as touching it with your ears. Be aware that there is no reason why one must be literal, and you know buda often isn't.

Below are other examples of untouchable things that are described as tangible.

Example Sentences
The above outlines just a few examples of the challenges facing Google as a business, which will likely have a tangible impact on search.

From Search Engine Watch
That subject, like the conflict of Choice’s street scenes, is tangible and immediate.

From Washington Post
By taking advantage of semantic search opportunities, a retailer offers a potential customer more tangible, relevant information on a product of interest, and the retailer has a clear path to an already interested buyer for a specific product.

From Search Engine Watch
So watching Biden move in his first full week in office was like trying to make sense of smoke — always moving, never tangible and ever open to interpretation.

From Time
He cautioned though that it will take months for the vaccine program to have a tangible impact on the disease.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tangible

You can not touch a "tangible impact on search". You can not touch a "conflict of Choice’s street scenes". You definitely can not touch "tangible, relevant information" Etc. All you can do is sense (feel) them.

The image in a mirror and the sound of the person in a room, are way more senseable (touchable with one's eyes or ears) than some things described since you can see the image in the mirror with your eyes and hear the sound with your ears.

I touched your comment above by sensing it with my eyes and with my mind because you made your intangible thought tangible for me to touch it. If you had not made your comment above tangible for me to touch it with my senses, the only way I would be reading it is with my mind reader.

LordReed:


Because I already answered them.

You did NOT answer them sir!

Questions:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

jaephoenix:

1. The output ie the display, is an evident of the software. It may not be the software itself but the fact that it emanates from the software, is in indication the software exists.
2. So what is the name of the entity that is measured in kb and stored in the flash drive?
3. Softwares can be made, stored and destroyed. They even have partitions in the storage media where they reside, so yes, they can be located. Even though we can't touch or hear them, we can interface with them via the visual output
4. We can see the visual output of the software. I can store it on a flash, copy and paste it in any media. So yes, I don't need anybody to convince me it exists. Its right in my flash drive, which is in my pocket
5. AI machines have interfaces their devs give instructions via the codes. These codes constitute the programs, I believe.
Like I said I'm not a computer scientist. But every endeavor of human existence works on logic
6. You are the ignorant and foolish one here who thinks we atheists would ask if softwares are real.
So why are these questions. I don't have the strength or time to start reading from page 1

I can understand how ignorance is the fuel behind your stance.

Have a nice day

jaephoenix:

I as an atheist don't insist on physical quantification
Again I ask, what is the aim of all these questions

The question was not about you as an atheist.
Check

budaatum:


You left out time!

There is 'energy' (information) in your words (string of letter that are not random and have meaning).

The energy in your words is what I am responding to.

Your words are in a dimension of here.

Your words are being read at time now.

If you had not imbued your words with dimension and energy and time so I can read them, your words would be intangible to me.

The only reason I am not stating that your words have mass is because you would likely ask how many grams your words weigh.

Think Einstein's Relativity. It might help you comprehend the information that I am conveying to you tangibly.

Your cup is too full and therefore knowledge is meaningless.

How can INFORMATION be energy?
How can LOGIC be energy?
How can MATHEMATICS be Energy?
How can SOFTWARE be Energy?

They are all in the same class of Real but NOT Tangible things

budaatum:


It would seem that you do not have the right decoder. If you had, you would not claim we agree on the bold.

I have told you that a fire alarm that goes off in a building is conveying information whether you know what the fire alarm is telling you or not. I also said that you would not claim a person speaking Hindi is not conveying information just because you don't understand Hindi. So how can you possibly claim that you must understand the data you are giving for it to be information?

Is everything you have written in this thread lack information if I don't understand a word you wrote?


I 100% agree that To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded.

To the transmitter, the string of text has information, unless the transmitter intentionally writes gibberish, which I credit you for not doing.


This is somehow, TenQ.

If the receiver Ignores or rejects or misinterprets the information it is given, then the receiver will receive no information. That, however, does not mean "The string of text is NO information".

You can write the above in perfect Hindi, and I who speaks no Hindi will not receive the information in your words. That does not therefore mean that there is no information in your words.


You are getting a lot warmer already, and I appreciate that you are.

You want to speak "ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver". I am not doing anything of the sort, even where computers are concerned. Please note.


[i]You do not determine only because you did not write the software. If you had written the software you would know that you and only you determine what information and how the information is passed to the computer, so long as you make the software you write tangible (readable, perceptible) to the computer).

To say otherwise is to claim that I determine what and how you write what you write here, which clearly is not the case. If it were the case, I would determine that you stop arguing with me and just agree with me, but I am certain you would flex muscle and tell me not to tell you what to write here!


If you write you sign language to a computer that is not configured to understand sign language, you computer will fail to understand the message you are trying to convey to it in sign language, and it would be as pointless as speaking Hindi to buda.


I agree that you information is Gibberish to the computer if your computer can not read sign language. That does not however mean that your sign language is gibberish. It just means your computer does not understand sign language and has no decoder to decode the information you fed it in sign language.


I agree that from the computer's framework, sign language will be gibberish to it. That does however mean that your sign language is gibberish. Just that you computer can not decode your sign language.


Yes. I can run Microsoft Word on a Mac. Google it if you don't know how!


From the point of view of the receiver, I agree. The Hindi speaker conveying information in real Hindi would however not agree that they are speaking gibberish.

And I am not buying your "Gibberish Hindi" nonsense! If you speak gibberish English to me I would just stop conversing with you!


It would be rather foolish of you to sign language to a computer that can not decode sign language.

If you had written this post in Hindi, you'd have wasted your time because it would be gibberish to me despite it likely not being gibberish to you who wrote it in Hindi.


I think you keep going on about this your "point of view of the Receiver" only because you are beginning to understand that there may be other points of view, like that of the information giver.

It is appreciated.


Lol!

If the computer does not understand sign language, I agree that the computer does not receive anything.

But if you write your software and compile it into the specific language the machine can decode, then not only will the computer be aware of the information you give it, it will also carry out any instruction that you coded into the software and fed to the machine.


This is the point where I now inform you that your definition of tangible is very narrow, as is your idea of "Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time".

Hopefully, you can decode all I have said so far, and comprehend the information therein, and considered the definitions of tangible that I posted for my Lord.

Now, I got a meeting to go to. I will respond to your other post when I am done.

I am wasting the time I dont have with you sir!

I guess only LordReed can speak some clarity into you

jaephoenix:

I as an atheist don't insist on physical quantification
Again I ask, what is the aim of all these questions

Aim:
That some Things exist which are NOT tangible is the aim!