₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
l am lost .....you brought up a sily analogy, I try as much to sanitized the silliness from it .....by telling you court will verify if the crime is actually done by Asians as the black man claim.....the bone of your sily analogy is who committed the crime......how should the court rely on self evidence theory.....is it not sily to you.......please .......it is too early......am done.. For now ....in an hours time , you can quote me again....

It is actually clear that you have no idea what "self evident" means.

The bone of contention is whether there is need to prove a self evident claim. Nothing else.



Budaatum, you owe me one beer for dealing with vaxx

superhumanist:
Read my post again

I just did, it has nothing I didnt read the first time neither does it have any evidence whatsoever proving beyond any iota of doubt the existence of Seun as a human.

BTW, don't feel compelled to respond if you don't have any new insight to offer.

superior1:
Again, it is your subjective opinion. I have read alot of myths on Google lately

Now this is a clincher!

You are smart.

superhumanist:
It is actually clear that you have no idea what "self evident" means.

The bone of contention is whether there is need to prove a self evident claim. Nothing else.



Budaatum, you owe me one beer for dealing with vaxx

lol... I cannot stop laughing, he actually deal with vaxx indeed. What an irony... Your analogy is as sily as your response.... Will you see it No

I will be grateful if anyone has insights or arguments to prove Seun is a human beyond any iota of doubt.

superior1:
I just did, it has nothing I didnt read the first time neither does it have any evidence whatsoever proving beyond any iota of doubt the existence of Seun as a human.

BTW, don't feel compelled to respond if you don't have any new insight to offer.

Of course. A robot built Nairaland. The Seun Osewa that has done interviews about nairaland is not human probably a humanoid or a cyborg front for the robot.

Seun that has businesses just outside Lagos is not real. His family (Osewa family) are not real. Probably a bunch of robots too.


Sir. At this point, if you fail to see the point in this sarcastic post, I pity you and whatever progeny you bring into this world. Foolishness is a curse.

vaxx:
lol... I cannot stop laughing, he actually deal with vaxx indeed. What an irony... Your analogy is as sily as your response.... Will you see it No

Park well

superhumanist:
Of course. A robot built Nairaland. The Seun Osewa that has done interviews about nairaland is not human probably a humanoid or a cyborg front for the robot.

Seun that has businesses just outside Lagos is not real. His family (Osewa family) are not real. Probably a bunch of robots too.


Sir. At this point, if you fail to see the point in this sarcastic post, I pity you and whatever progeny you bring into this world. Foolishness is a curse.

Thanks for offering new insights, if you have enough data subscription, please watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Ox6H64yu8

An interview video of Sophia, a robot, a valid citizen and passport carrier of Saudi Arabia. She is not human. Perhaps you can follow your own earlier advice and Google the capabilities of AIs

vaxx:
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

I have not just presented you with one self evidence, however!

Self evident to me, who says "sc, see vaxx", becomes self evident to me and self evident to sc.
I see you. My witness sc sees you. We therefore have evidence from 2 people!

Is that enough in your court?

superior1:
Thanks for offering new insights, if you have enough data subscription, please watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Ox6H64yu8

An interview video of a robot, a valid citizen and passport carrier of Saudi Arabia. She is not human.

And this relates to Seun Osewa existing how?

Is the robot sentient? Can it converse like a human being if asked emotional questions? Please note that true AI (artificial intelligence) does not exist. You cannot program a computer to talk like a human.

Also note that the Seun here has numerous comments that cannot be a result of programming as certain nuances cannot be programmed into robots.

vaxx:
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class

And also, self evidence is not tantamount to unseen! It is just my personal experience

I may be by myself, and see vaxx coming towards me. The fact that no one corroborates what I see does not mean I have not seen you!

vaxx:
whao....good response

That said. And if you agree with sc. You might understand why you might need to provide some evidence for the validity of axioms. Some people might not want to take your word for it!

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

superhumanist:
And this relates to Seun Osewa existing how?

Is the robot sentient? Can it converse like a human being if asked emotional questions? Please note that true AI (artificial intelligence) does not exist. You cannot program a computer to talk like a human.

Also note that the Seun here has numerous comments that cannot be a result of programming as certain nuances cannot be programmed into robots.

The bold made me smile a little.

Sophia can do all these, please read

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot)

Seun can as far as I know be another Sophia and not human.

ScienceWatch:
BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.

Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.

You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.

Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."

The analogy is using is faulty for two reasons......1 first do you both have the same objective personality of whom vaxx is.....maybe you are both seeing vaxz for the first time....how will you judge that this is indeed vaxx...


2.... Let's assume you both know vaxx but it happens to see vaxx coming before you and he pointed that this is vaxx coming. How sure is he that you will not have your own subjective evidence of whom vaxx should be? Which might not even be the same with him.....both of you can only agree for the sake of mental convinency that vaxx should be this and that.....

superhumanist:
It is actually clear that you have no idea what "self evident" means.

The bone of contention is whether there is need to prove a self evident claim. Nothing else.



Budaatum, you owe me one beer for dealing with vaxx

Oh, trust me, it takes more than that. One is dealing with a people who opened one eye, looked at something and then squeezed their eyes shut and refuse to take another look. It is difficult to make them open their eyes to look again and see that what they thought they saw is not what is actually there. To make it harder, the above is what they think one does!

So, more grease. Their eyes will open eventually. They have no choice! Then one drink. Nay, two, considering the effort we will have put in. I promise.

budaatum:
And also, self evidence is not tantamount to unseen! It is just my personal experience

I may be by myself, and see vaxx coming towards me. The fact that no one corroborates what I see does not mean I have not seen you!

pls read my response to sciencewatch

budaatum:
Oh, trust me, it takes more than that. One is dealing with a people who opened one eye, looked at something and then squeezed their eyes shut and refuse to take another look. It is difficult to make them open their eyes to look again and see that what they thought they saw is not what is actually there. To make it harder, the above is what they think one does!

So, more grease. Their eyes will open eventually. They have no choice! Then one drink. Nay, two, considering the effort we will have put in. I promise.

I guess you have open your two eyes.... Lol

superior1:
The bold made me smile a little.

Sophia can do all these, please read

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot)

Seun can as far as I know be another Sophia and not human.

Please focus on this statement from Sophia's Wikipedia page:

"While interviewers around the world have been impressed by the sophistication of many of Sophia's responses to their questions, the bulk of Sophia's meaningful statements are believed by experts to be somewhat scripted"






Please don't be purposefully silly. A robot cannot converse like a human. A robot could not have built Nairaland and converse with humans on the same nairaland like Seun does.

Seun is a real man with family and businesses. Go and be silly no more

vaxx:
The analogy is using is faulty for two reasons......1 first do you both have the same objective personality of whom vaxx is.....maybe you are both seeing vaxz for the first time....how will you judge that this is indeed vaxx...


2.... Let's assume you both know vaxx but it happens to see vaxx coming before you and he pointed that this is vaxx coming. How sure is he that you will not have your own subjective evidence of whom vaxx should be? Which might not even be the same with him.....both of you can only agree for the sake of mental convinency that vaxx should be this and that.....

Please stop with this stupid! You may as well claim we don't agree on the meaning of the words "coming towards", and my "coming towards" is sc's "going away from"!

The analogy assumes we both agree on who vaxx is and what he looks like! And the meaning of "coming towards" is coming towards (just in case you.......)

budaatum:
That said. And if you agree with sc. You might understand why you might need to provide some evidence for the validity of axioms. Some people might not want to take your word for it!

i have given enough explanations on axioms, i still do not know why you can get it. you are just a person i cannot just ignore, but on this particular subject. i am done

budaatum:
Please stop with this stupid! You may as well claim we don't agree on the meaning of the words "coming towards", and my "coming towards" is sc's "going away from"!

The analogy assumes we both agree on who vaxx is and what he looks like! And the meaning of "coming towards" is coming towards (just in case you.......)

good . you both assume whom vaxx is base on what constraint?sometimes i do not know why you people do not see your flaws until someone point it out. what make you both assume? on what precept do you both assume on?

budaatum:
Oh, trust me, it takes more than that. One is dealing with a people who opened one eye, looked at something and then squeezed their eyes shut and refuse to take another look. It is difficult to make them open their eyes to look again and see that what they thought they saw is not what is actually there. To make it harder, the above is what they think one does!

So, more grease. Their eyes will open eventually. They have no choice! Then one drink. Nay, two, considering the effort we will have put in. I promise.

Lol. They don't realise it that they are changing.

Butterflyl1on no later Nigeria argues like a Christian. He is now arguing like a deist.

Vaxx is now trying to be logical albeit failing.

vaxx:
i have given enough explanations on axioms, i still do not know why you can get it. you are just a person i cannot just ignore, but on this particular subject. i am done

You are not done! Years from now, if that's how long it takes, you and I will still be on this (axioms) just like we are with obj/subj! The reason is the implications, which will always arise! There is a reason you cannot ignore buda!



The evidence for a self evident thing is the fact that it is evident! its evidency is proof!

superhumanist:
Please focus on this statement from Sophia's Wikipedia page:

"While interviewers around the world have been impressed by the sophistication of many of Sophia's responses to their questions, the bulk of Sophia's meaningful statements are believed by experts to be somewhat scripted"



Please don't be purposefully silly. A robot cannot converse like a human. A robot could not have built Nairaland and converse with humans on the same nairaland like Seun does.

Seun is a real man with family and businesses. Go and be silly no more

Atleast you now know it's possible for robots to be programmed to speak like human, no need thanking me.
So speaking, commenting etc doesn't prove human like you earlier ascerted.

If you have other insights do bring it on, please don't feel compelled to respond if you have none.

Can anyone please prove without any iota of doubt that Seun is actually an existing human?

superhumanist:
Lol. They don't realise it that they are changing.

Butterflyl1on no later Nigeria argues like a Christian. He is now arguing like a deist.

Vaxx is now trying to be logical albeit failing.

They have preconceived ideas but do not want to face the fact that the twig they see in the eyes of others is actually a forest in their own eyes.

They are changing alright though, albeit very slowly.

vaxx:
good . you both assume whom vaxx is base on what constraint?sometimes i do not know why you people do not see your flaws until someone point it out. what make you both assume? on what precept do you both assume on?

My analogy is not assuming two drunk people! Come on, work within the parameters of my axiom!

We both know vaxx. We both know what he looks like. He is expected perhaps etc. For the sake of analogy!

superior1:
Thanks for offering new insights, if you have enough data subscription, please watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Ox6H64yu8

An interview video of Sophia, a robot, a valid citizen and passport carrier of Saudi Arabia. She is not human. Perhaps you can follow your own earlier advice and Google the capabilities of AIs

This is the reason elon musk is scared of ALS.....they will soon replace human capital which will in turn increase unemployment. this made me ask a particular question, are we indeed progressing? she was granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia last year

budaatum:
My analogy is not assuming two drunk people! Come on, work within the parameters of my axiom!

We both know vaxx. We both know what he looks like. He is expected perhaps etc. For the sake of analogy!

good point , you will actually answer this question yourself, you both know vaxx on what factor? at least for two able mind to say we both agree on this we should factor some common agreement and not just base on beer parlor settlement. is it because of vaxx look or his writing style? or what?

superior1:
Atleast you now know it's possible for robots to be programmed to speak like human, no need thanking me.
So speaking, commenting etc doesn't prove human like you earlier ascerted.

If you have other insights do bring it on, please don't feel compelled to respond if you have none.

Can anyone please prove without any iota of doubt that Seun is actually an existing human?

Budaatum, look!

Look at another purposefully silly person who likes to argue against obvious facts.

He believes a robot built Nairaland and the Seun Osewa that spoke at interviews is robot. Lol.

superhumanist:
Budaatum, look!

Look at another purposefully silly person who likes to argue against obvious facts.

He believes a robot built Nairaland and the Seun Osewa that spoke at interviews is robot. Lol.

you should know this guy is playing a mental gymnastic with you, just like you guys do when the GOD evidence is brought forward. he actually knows se..un exist as an individual. he is indirectly also educating you on the capacity of artificial intelligence(robot) that she can indeed replace most of the things done by human, which is develop, monitor and administer a website all by herself. to me i think the guy flawed your logic. let me also add this to it ... when works are complete on the artificial intelligence, she will also be capable of producing a copy of herself.... no need for human intervention....

vaxx:
good point , you will actually answer this question yourself, you both know vaxx on what factor at least for two able mind to say we both agree on this we should factor some common agreement and not just base on beer parlor settlement. is it because of vaxx look or his writing style? or what?

Precisely! We would have to agree on our axioms! The assumed axioms in the analogy is that he knows vaxx and understands the meaning of "is" and "coming"! Basically, for the sake of the analogy, I have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows the axioms that define vaxx, and the meaning of "is" and "coming". Such that if I say "sc, look at vaxx coming", we agree that it is indeed vaxx who is coming based on the agreed axioms (whatever they may be) that constitute who vaxx is, and those that constitute "is", and those that constitute "coming".

If I can't have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows vaxx, or understands the definition of "is" and "coming", and that he is an honest individual (he isn't, but for the sake of the analogy, lets assume he is), I would have to start off by making sure sc has eyes and that he knows how to use them, and then telling sc who vaxx is, then defining "is" and "coming", and ascertaining that we are in agreement. That would be me defining my axioms, by making them evident to sc. Basically, I will have to prove the validity of my axioms to sc!

It is those axioms you are here quibbling about. And it is your quibbling that creates a need for me to have to define (or prove) them!

vaxx:
you should know this guy is playing a mental gymnastic with you, ....

So are you. Rather dishonestly!