₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
I sleep ooo but my problem be say once day break i no fit sleep again.. And the constant singing from the church close by did not even make it easy for sef

The Lord has to be praised

KingEbukasBlog:
The Lord has to be praised

Hahahahahahahaha Don't worry na El Rufai things sure pass Person no go sleep for them again? them no fit praise am when it's dawn abi the praise go spoil?

Abeg who carry El Rufai number

johnydon22:
Hahahahahahahaha Don't worry na El Rufai things sure pass Person no go sleep for them again? them no fit praise am when it's dawn abi the praise go spoil?

Abeg who carry El Rufai number

Just dial '666'.

johnydon22:
Hahahahahahahaha Don't worry na El Rufai things sure pass Person no go sleep for them again? them no fit praise am when it's dawn abi the praise go spoil?

Abeg who carry El Rufai number

If you call am im no go pick . That dude is a closet atheist

Ayomikun37:
This is a question that has always bothered me ever since the advent of my atheism... Is the universe really all about the physical alone? Is it possible that everything can be explained through empirical and physical means? Is MIND a product of MATTER or is it the other way round? Which sounds more probable? How reasonable and credible is the materialistic position? What do you think of Robert Lanza's concept of Biocentric Universe which holds that [size=16]Consciousness "creates" the universe and not the other way round?[/size] How credible do you think this is? Does it contain any element of truth? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

it has zero credibility, except as philosophical blah blah

johnydon22:
Consciousness in general is what which still puzzles human study which we are getting 'this close' to solving each day but human thinking ability has been credited biologically to the brain

Now in the biological sense The Frontal Lobe of your brain is responsible for thoughts.

Now my ideas of thoughts though personally to me these parts of the human consciousness thinking, problem solving, planning would be understood....

Good evening sir. Pardon me for replying this late... My aunt was having her newborn's naming ceremony today, so I've been kinda occupied all day... My repiy to your post is gonna be kinda long, but since my phone here only allows 1000 characters per post, it may take quite a few posts for me to complete it, and I'll like you to reserve your comments until after I'm done, please...

wiegraf:
it has zero credibility, except as philosophical blah blah

Philosophy is the way young man

KingEbukasBlog:
Philosophy is the way young man

Philosophy is profound and eloquent but it is not a method of empirical deductions and does not tender methods of substantiation but rely on pleasant Poetry and surface logic.

It was Philosophy that led Aristotle to postulate the reason why Objects in motion stop is because they get tired.

Scientific method is the only method that entail systematic deductions through consistent study and empirical observations to reach a truthful approximation..

Philosophy is the way when it entails the networks of the human interactions and society but for truthful deductions for our natural intellectual development 'Science' (Natural Philosophy it was former called) becomes the way

Ayomikun37:
Good evening sir. Pardon me for replying this late... My aunt was having her newborn's naming ceremony today, so I've been kinda occupied all day... My repiy to your post is gonna be kinda long, but since my phone here only allows 1000 characters per post, it may take quite a few posts for me to complete it, and I'll like you to reserve your comments until after I'm done, please...

Alright brother by the way i got your mail, i will reply as soon as i can

johnydon22:
Philosophy is profound and eloquent but it is not a method of empirical deductions and does not tender methods of substantiation but rely on pleasant Poetry and surface logic.

It was Philosophy that led Aristotle to postulate the reason why Objects in motion stop is because they get tired.

Scientific method is the only method that entail systematic deductions through consistent study and empirical observations to reach a truthful approximation..

Philosophy is the way when it entails the networks of the human interactions and society but for truthful deductions for our natural intellectual development 'Science' (Natural Philosophy it was former called) becomes the way

Science has its apparent limitations . Philosophy is not scared to go beyond .

KingEbukasBlog:
Science has its apparent limitations . Philosophy is not scared to go beyond .

Philosophizing does not substantiate anything it is more or less poetry... When you philosophize a thesis but cannot demonstrate it's eventuality it doesn't leave the scope of personal opinion.

But when a thesis in science is proven it leaves an opinion and becomes a demonstrative fact..

So you may explore where ever you want by Philosophizing it doesn't automatically make them true

johnydon22:
Philosophizing does not substantiate anything it is more or less poetry... When you philosophize a thesis but cannot demonstrate it's eventuality it doesn't leave the scope of personal opinion.

But when a thesis in science is proven it leaves an opinion and becomes a demonstrative fact..

So you may explore where ever you want by Philosophizing it doesn't automatically make them true

So how do you then obviate the limitations of science ? .

KingEbukasBlog:
So how do you then obviate the limitations of science ? .

Certainly not by assumptions or unsubstantiated claims that is the opposite of knowledge.

and no matter how profound or eloquent or poetic an unsubstantiated assumption is, it doesn't automatically make true so there certainly is no need to fill a gap of ignorance with poetic fantasies.

Maybe you can avow what these limits are?

[b](Continued from previous post) ...Maybe both mind and matter have always been inherent in the universe and do INTERACT? Let's say the universe has two domains - the mental and the material - that is, it is a coin with two sides, and that these domains tend to interact even at the most primitive level of existence, and the more complex the material becomes in any entity that has become "animate" under the necessary conditions, the more advanced and sophisticated its mind also gets along the way? Perhaps the mental domain of the universe is dimensionless[/], whereas the material domain is [u]dimensional? Would that explain why quantum particles pass through barriers in the phenomenon known as quantum tunelling? - that is, they're so close to the dimensionless point that they could "pass through" the dimensional? And now that recent research indicates that even bacteria communicate, would it be safe to project that they're also conscious?... (Continued in the next post)[/b]

WHAT CAUSES BROWNIAN WHY DO THIS PARTICLES KEEP MOVING RANDOMLY ?? WHY DON'T THEY SETTLE ON THE FLOOR?? DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE SELF AWARE??

[b](Continued from previous post)... and that both mind and matter have billions of ways of interacting, and some of these happened to give rise to life as we see it today, when the material and mental conditions for it to occur were right, and that the outcome, as well as the extent of success of these interactions depends on the balance of the two or the dominance of one over the other... could that be the case? All nothing but mere assumptions, right? Yeah, that's right. Science is empirical - it holds that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses - this make experiments a requirement, and the scientific method is the way to go. Rationalists however are strongly of the opinion that reality has an instrinsically logical structure. They have confidence that "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience". Their methodology is one in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual...(Continued in next post)[/b]

johnydon22:
Certainly not by assumptions or unsubstantiated claims that is the opposite of knowledge.

and no matter how profound or eloquent or poetic an unsubstantiated assumption is, it doesn't automatically make true so there certainly is no need to fill a gap of ignorance with poetic fantasies.

Maybe you can avow what these limits are?

Science is the study of nature - the material/physical universe . So anything that is immaterial it observes it as non existent .

KingEbukasBlog:
Science is the study of nature - the material/physical universe . So anything that is immaterial it observes it as non existent .

If you have a way to observe the immaterial you can tender your findings, but if there is no way to observe such how then can you know such a thing exists if not only by assuming it up..

Since you cannot observe or perceive it there is no way for you to know therefore making such claims while still agreeing that it is unobservable, unknowable or provable but yet somehow you know,renders it complete bogus..

So i am sure someone can still win a nobel prize on that

[b](Continued from previous post)... So, in this case, empiricism doesn't seem to be working. Is rationalism the way then? Einstein's theory was true. Imagine that physicists found it difficult to create experiments to test its validity, it wouldn't have been accepted. Same goes for Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation. And remember Mathematics and logic are rational and not empirical. If rationalism is the thesis, and empiricism the antithesis, then we have "empirico-rationalism" as the synthesis. Therefore, we should base our methodology on both empiricism and rationalism, and not on only one of them. So, where empiricism fails, we apply rationalism, and vice-versa. We can even apply both. The above assumptions about mind and matter could be true, as much as they could be false. Is there a way to find out? The DIALETIC harnesses the triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis in a systematic, scientific manner based on EVIDENCE... (see next post)[/b]

johnydon22:
If you have a way to observe the immaterial you can tender your findings, but if there is no way to observe such how then can you know such a thing exists if not only by assuming it up..

Since you cannot observe or perceive it there is no way for you to know therefore making such claims while still agreeing that it is unobservable, unknowable or provable but yet someone how you know,renders it complete bogus..

So i am sure someone can still win a nobel prize on that

Experience is a path to knowledge . Empiricism could deter the comprehension of what cannot be observed by sensory perception or experimented on to ascertain validity .

[b](Continued from previous post)... I want enlightened people here playing the devil's advocate to call it into question, and show me reasons why it could never be true... I want to be sure whether to discard or hold onto it, that's why I opened this thread... So, johnydon22 and others, how many holes do you see in my assumptions? And if you intend to consider it as credible to some extent, for what reasons would you? (YOU CAN REPLY NOW)[b]

KingEbukasBlog:
Experience is a path to knowledge . Empiricism could deter the comprehension of what cannot be observed by sensory perception or experimented on to ascertain validity .

when a validity cannot be ascertained your postulation remains an assumption or simply put a claim since you have no way of knowing or perceiving it's eventuality.

Ayomikun37 i will chip in my mind afterwards

johnydon22:
Ayomikun37 i will chip in my mind afterwards

Alright sir...

johnydon22:
What is consciousness to start with

Awareness.

KingEbukasBlog:
Thoughts create matter . Thoughts come from the mind . The mind created matter . God has the mind . God created matter

I like this. I would add that thoughts of mind are creative. Since the mind of the source of creation (God) centres us, we and God IS one--we are all thus creators of our personal realities through what we think of it, good or bad. Imagine when many individual minds (mass mind) focus one thought, very creative. I realise I am going off topic, but I am stating this because we do not realise that all of us have created Nigeria through our collective thoughts, which reading through many threads, is very negative. Thoughts expressed as WORD is very powerful. We really need to watch it!

Ayomikun37 Your thoughts are profound, refreshing and beautiful and full of wisdom and sound intellect.

First we have to understand is, in the discipline Science Empiricism is the method of confirmation and the hallmark of falsification and substantiation which ever way the postulation tilts but is not the only means of scientific deduction.

Science utilizes Reason and logic in the development of a thesis but empiricism confirms and provides a certainty of the eventuality.

So Logical and rational assumption while deep and a gate way to outstanding exploration to the problems that plagues us is not entirely or reliable in an average sense since without empiricism it is blind.

Einstein's rational and logical assumption could have been right but at the same time it could have been wrong and Newton's could have been right as well as being wrong.

Empiricism stepped in and that blindness of logical and rational speculations of both Newton and Einstein were illuminated and certainty was ensured.

In ancient Natural Philosophy, it took rationalization and simple logic to conclude the sun went round the earth just like the moon.

It was rational to think that but also blind in essence as certainty is lacking.

Newton proposed a static universe, a force of attraction between matter, Einstein also agreed with a static and eternal universe but rather a fabric-like Space/time.

Edwin Hubble and empiricist both illuminated those rational assumptions and gave a torch of certainty to these assumptions.

And that opinion of a static universe was shattered.

Aristotle while being a very brilliant and logical fellow tendered a very rational explanation of why objects in motion slow down and eventually stop.

He postulated that "Objects in motion gets tired that is why they slow down and eventually comes to a halt.

This we agree is a rational conclusion since this holds true to willful motions but even though rational it wasn't true to the motions of Physical values


Without empiricism, Einstein's theory will be uncertain to us cus while very logical and rational it may be wrong or may be right, so we are roped within the confines of uncertainty..

So while we agree rationalism and logic can lead on a deep exploration of what is or might be, we also should agree that without empiricism it is blind in essence.


Same way we could infer without rationalism and logic empiricism crawls.

So science both encompasses both logical, rational and empirical limbs in it's quest to ascertain what is.

Now for Consciousness as i have maintained, human study both in a logical and empirical sense has not been able to quantify in certainty of it's whole manifestations because the mind being the totality of conscious value can be likened to the universe.

And just as we are minute and can deduct the many things in the universe it will be hard to encompass in all certainty the totality of universal manifestations.

so too is to us the evasive nature of consciousness to our perception.

When we delve deep into the Quantum world we will understand that matter is not really as minutely spooky as we think so i'd like us not to limit the possibilities of manifestations as regards matter.

In our understanding now, Consciousness cannot be expressly unrelated to perceptiveness and perceptiveness at minute level in unity defines consciousness.

So is life a union of matter and mind? if this is so as a philosophical rationalization may stress then this totally breaks the relationship between perceptibility and Mind.

Is the 'Mind' a conscious thinking nothingness?

If perceptibility defines the basis of the mind and perceptibility cannot be distinguished from the confines of matter as we know, how then can 'mind' be without perception and perception without matter?

You mentioned Love, hate, beauty, music, art, poetry being products of the mind you avow are unlike products of matter.

But from our understanding of the neurological manifestations of a human mind these emotions are products of chemical quantification interpreted in the psychiatric sphere.

example: Love is a product of dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin.. this chemistry manifests in a quantum and electrical interaction and not just a conventional mixture.

So maybe we should rethink the nature of matter, maybe the problem is not in matter not being able to give rise to consciousness even though it seems so it still is not convincing to us but rather in the way or the confines of limited expectations we rope around the manifestations or abilities of matter

Then in a rational and logical sense maybe it is our own perception of matter is lacking, maybe it is our own understanding of matter wanting and not the eventuality of what matter can do.

So while we are in the drawing board of coming up with a convincing explanation to sate our awe of consciousness, let us not make the mistake of placing a limiting lid to the important and curious aspect of this enquiry which is matter.

Therefore i beg to infer that even though we have not in all certainty deducted the nature of the totality of consciousness, placing restrictions will only diminish the sphere of where our enquiry can reach.

Judging 'matter' on the surface places us in a position of placing a lid over the possibilities of what is, might or can be.

So maybe we should rethink our perception of matter and it's manifestations or fairly not put a lid what we imagine or think it can do and this i believe is a rational insertion.

We may not yet have answered this question that plagues us, i totally agree with you that we do not sorely depend on rationalism or empiricism or the bounds of our deductions will be greatly diminished.

so in our quest to find out what is, empirico-rationalism as science utilizes gives a promise of inferring a certain solution to the problem but while at it there is need to broaden our scope of rational and empirical enquiry.