₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
Seems the holy spirit can inspire a Christian to talk more about Islam than Christianity! The thread is about Christianity!

You're deflecting as usual. I never claimed to be a Christian. Check my past posts in my profile to confirm this. I'm neutral, but neutrality doesn't mean silence when I see hypocrisy.

You came into a thread about Christianity, and described contradictions and "mystery", acting as if yours has none. When I said " all religion has its contradictions" , yours included, you didn't defend Islam, you ran back to "thread is about Christianity"

Why should anyone trust your criticism of Christian "mystery" when your own Allah is described as both perfectly just and all -forgiving without any mechanism to reconcile them? That is also a "mystery"


If you can't see the beam in your own eye, don't point out the speck in your neighbour's.

AntiChristian:
Even the concept of God tasting death for once and being subjected to debasing concept of vicarious atonement is incredible!

God died!

God became man!

God is three but one!

Then they mix in "mystery" and you can't understand without the holy spirit!

In your own religion, Islam, Allah is described as both "The just" and " The All -Forgiving".If Allah can forgive any sin by accepting repentance, without any punishment, sacrifice, or atonement, then in what sense is he just?

A human judge who forgives a criminal without any penalty is not called just. He's called lenient but not just. Justice requires that a wrong be addressed, either punished or compensated

If Allah forgiveness bypasses justice completely, then "justice" becomes an empty title. If Instead He does punish, then His mercy is not absolute

Christianity at least offer a coherent mechanism, Christ takes the penalty,, so justice and mercy meet. Islam in the other hand, says , "Allah simply forgives ", but that avoids the logical problem rather than solving it. Either Allah's justice is not real justice, or his mercy is limited..

Every religion is the same. Each has its own contradiction

ProphEkene:
Many people pray, in church at home. Some have given up praying and this is the question in the mind of many people. So am asking has prayers ever worked for you. If yes share ur experiences. You may touch a live today

It depends on the type of prayer you're referring to. There are two types: personal prayer to change one's personal circumstances for good , and intercessory prayer to change or influence external circumstances and persons for one's benefit.

For the former, there is enough evidence to support its effectiveness in changing or improving personal circumstances. It can lead to improved health outcomes, in some cases miraculous healing (which I have personally experienced and know others who have too) , or it can act as confidence booster helping one say and do what they wouldn't ordinary do. Messi and Ronaldo usually make the sign of the cross when entering the field of play or after scoring a goal. In fact most successful sports men do the same as confidence booster.. What matters is the individual belief, not the object of belief

When it comes to the latter , intercessory prayer, the evidence is scant. It's difficult to tell whether an individual or group prayer has changed anything external. The truth , which some would reject, is that prayer cannot change external circumstances in a direct magical way, such as praying for your favourite team to win the league or for the sun to "stand still" for your sake.

When it comes to external circumstances and other people, prayer, when done with genuine belief and sincerity, can fire neurons in your brain and propel you to take steps that position you in the right place at the right time to seize opportunities in your environment. In other words, you cannot use prayer to change external circumstances, but you can use it to change your position within external circumstances to seize opportunities in your environment. This is how prayer works, not by God magically depositing money in your bank account. Of course, that's what many people, believers and non believers alike, expect when they pray or think of it, and when it doesn't happen that way, they either start to doubt or declare that prayer doesn't work

Even those who say they don't pray may have prayed without knowing it. If you have a good plan for what you want to achieve and expect to succeed without doubting it during the planning stage, you are praying. Why? Because successful prayer depend on the individual expectation.

As the saying goes, "if you expect to succeed , you surely will". If you expect to fail, no matter what you do , you will either fail , or struggle to succeed ". If you succeed at all, it would not be what you really want.

SpencerForbes:
Still working on the current homework codedly... but my next topic is going to be lit..🧐

Let me help you so your work becomes very easy.

Here is the genesis of what you jumped into midway. It's because you don't know the complete story you are confused about what's going on

https://www.nairaland.com/7731741/mission#123856489

https://www.nairaland.com/6942843/matter-mind/36#116555518

Read my comments in the threads above and please come back to make your findings public.

SpencerForbes:
I’m just here monitoring the movement, and I can bet my last kobo that the three of you can’t post at the exact same minute. At most, you’ll try to juggle two handles before the 'format' breaks. 😂

Now, let’s go to the main matter: Is this a forced marketing for your Rosáy tradition or are you trying to sell a new religion to Nigerians by fire by force? 🤨

I’m already waiting for you to login to the Trip moniker to come and defend this low-budget acting. Oya, over to you!

Oh! .A Sherlock Holmes has come to Nairaland!

So you think I am Budaatum, and also Deepsight? That is genuinely amusing. You need to be corrected before your imagination runs completely wild..

A person's writing style is like their voice, unique and impossible to replicate exactly across different moniker.. The science backs this. Go through my post history and then compare it to Budaatum's and Deepsight's.. The differences are stark and obvious

Some persons on this forum know me personally. They know where I live and work in Nigeria. They've also met me offline. Budaatum is an elderly person known to live in the UK. Deepsight has been around for years but I don't know his location

Your accusation that we are the same person suggests that you are familiar with running multiple handles. That is your own habit, not mine. Do not project your tactics onto me.

Next time do your homework before making wild allegations.

APOPTOSIS:
The woman in your Life is what matters the most. Please keep her in check regularly
We already know the reason she is in your life.
You can consult Hakimi 4 Professional input

It is wrong to say this about the woman in his life.

She has been with him since his Wolfsburg days when he was a nobody and struggling to survive.

So drop this talk. You don't know anything about her.

DeepSight:
+
This is a non-dualist view, akin to pantheism, panentheism and monism. It also rhymes with the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta.

I find it hugely escapist on the matter of freewill though, because it more or less says that we are responsible for everything, probably even the creation of the universe.

Then what is the soul? I know you subscribe to the concept, but I have not read your definition of it anywhere.

The concept of the soul is often misconstrued, especially in traditions that separate it from its source. Anyone holding such a view would likely reject what I have said

So what is the soul?

What is it made of?

And how did you come to the realisation that you are soul different from the body?

DeepSight:
+
Well the real reason that freewill is very suspect is that every single thing from before the universe existed operates on some cause and effect and once this is true then there has been a line of causality from the beginning of the universe right down to the formation of the Earth, the evolution of creatures, the coming of humans and your parents and right down to the sort of person you would be, the brain you would have, the genetics you would have, where you would be born and all of these govern the choices you would make.

Soul is cause, not effect

Soul is one with that from which it is made. Soul and spirit, personified as God in religion, described as ", pure energy" in the sciences, are one and the same.

So collectively, we are the cause of everything we set into motion from the beginning. There is no cause outside spirit, and the same applies to soul, which we are

DeepSight:
+
Would you say that a person born with down syndrome has the same range of free choices that a genius has?

The question you asked assumes that a smaller range of choices translate to less free will. But free will is not measured or determined by the breath of options, but by the capacity to choose within the options that exist, and the ability to find meaning within those choices

From a spiritual point of view, free will operates at a level deeper than the physical body . The body, whether that of genius or a person with Down syndrome, is seen as carefully chosen vehicle for a specific journey of growth

This perspective , an unpopular one, suggests that the soul, prior to birth, chooses its physical form with its genetic makeup, and even its specific life challenges

So from this , a condition like Down syndrome is not a punishment or an accident. It is a specific set of constraints chosen by a courageous soul to learn a particular lesson, perhaps about patience, unconditional love, or the nature of identity beyond intellect

If we reject the spiritual angle, and choose to consider it from a practical day to day perspective we still find that free will is not absent in a person with Down syndrome. It is there but expressed differently A person with Down syndrome may not have the same intellectual choices as a genius, but they have a profound choice in other areas like how to respond to affection, how to express joy, what to learn with their abilities, and what attitude to take towards their circumstances, choices that even a genius may struggle to make.

The real limitation of free will is not Down syndrome or any othe similar r health challenge, , it is the ego's identification with the body alone. Once we come to the realisation we are not the body, the choice of that body is seen as the greatest freedom of all.

DeepSight:
+
Really? How deeply have you reflected on this question.

I have gone past the stage of reflecting on it. I am living it everyday of my life.

Let me try you.

For starters. Do you agree that your genes play a role in your life choices and the way you think?

Yes of course, they both play a role. But a role is not a cage. Our genes shape the tendencies we have, but they do not dictate choices. A person may have a genetic predisposition toward aggression, yet choose not to act on it. Not acting on it is exercising free will.

The controversy that has arisen over the concept of free will, whether we have it or not, is caused by differences in understanding . We do not understand it the same way

Free will does not mean the freedom to float above every physical constraint or "to do and undo" without hindrance, as most people assume. It means the freedom to make choices within the framework of both the physical body we occupy and the world we collectively share with others.

The way framed your question suggest to me that you equate free will with the absence of any influence. But it does not work that way . Even researchers who emphasise unconscious influence acknowledge that conscious reasoning and self-reflection can override initial impulses

When an individual knows that eating a certain meal will result in drowsiness before an important meeting, they have the choice not to eat it. The person will not say to himself, " My body will react anyway, so I have no choice"

The same thing happens when a thought to harm another person crosses one's mind. One also has the choice to act on it or not. The person will not say to himself " I cannot control my action because of how I think"

Yes , the impulse may arise, but the decision to follow it is ours . Free will is not the absence of influence.

DeepSight:
+
Freewill is likely an illusion.

No. It is not.

The realisation that one has free will hasten ones spiritual growth.

benalvino3:
The US should bomb those. They are weapons.

They dare not. If they do, Isreal would be in serious trouble .

And the IDF dare not stop them because they know "power pass power"

SIGMATRON:
So what is your question again?

I know your research is based on theories by Nick Bostrom and I know the hypothesis, yes, but what I am saying is that as Nick stated, it is an hypothesis that has a degree of accuracy, but if your question is actually to know if our reality here on Earth is a base reality and not a simulation? If that is your question, my answer is that all created Realities and any Realm are all simulations including this one.

And if you really want to know the nature of what you call Base Reality, which is basically the initial phase of consciousness dynamics into spatial dimension from the Monad, I can explain it based on my experience of it, but if you are totally invested in waiting for Nick Bostrom to tell you about base reality, you will get an hypothesis and not the true nature of it, cos until Nick moves from philosophy to parapsychism, he will not know.

You have misunderstood both my position and the conversation and that is because you didn't read from the beginning of the thread

I did not bring Brostrom into this thread. Deepsight did. I was clarifying what Brostrom meant, not relying on him as my source.

I don't subscribe to simulation of reality. Simulation contradicts the truth about life: free will, without which we would not evolve as humans.

The only question I asked you was, What are they simulating? And how do you know?

You answer was word salad and vague references. dressed as depth

SIGMATRON:
Vagueness is relative to a level of understanding. Let's step it down.

What is doing the simulation is Cosmic Super Intelligence (disembodied) for want of words. And that is magnitude of degrees lower than a Monad. And there are 12 Monads.

With regards to subjective experience, this is not speculative. I understand that 99.9% of the people will never experience it. And I don't really care.

You are yet to answer a single question and now adding more layers of unexplained jargon.

If your knowledge is real, you should be able to explain it in terms that others can easily grasp. Otherwise, vagueness is relative " is just a way to avoid giving a direct answer, and that is, if you really have any to give in the first place .

If you don't really care, then please stop replying. Thank you.

SIGMATRON:
Basically simulated for individuated fractal experiences. Just out of curiosity..

"Individuated fractal experiences" is vague talk.

Who or what is doing the simulating ? What is the original being simulated? And how do you know it is being done out of curiosity?
.

How I know ? Basically from subjective personal experiences.

If your knowledge concerning this is purely personal , then you are not making a claim, but stating a belief .

Your subjective experience are valid for you. but it does not establish an objective truth others are expected to accept.

SIGMATRON:
We appreciate the work of Nick Bostrom, he philosophizes clearly on extrapolated principles of reality, but it is basically not a lived experiences. Base Reality is not is not exactly what you assume. That phase of existence just is. Until you are, you wont understand. It is beyond psychic.

You have misrepresented what I said. I never claimed "base reality" is a lived experience. I simply noted what Brostrom actually wrote: a physical reality with its own physics, a hypothetical, not a state you must "be" to understand..

So, your "until you are", you won't understand " is evasion , not an argument. It deflects from the point I raised, and offers nothing but mystification.

If you have a clear position, please state it . Otherwise , this is just noise , not different from ",until you have the holy spirit you won't understand it "

DeepSight:
+
With a question mark to indicate that I am not certain either.

Ok then since you are not certain

Why would it be different from base reality?

Because "base reality" as Bostrom used it, refers to a physical reality, another universe, that runs the simulation we might be in.

It is not described as a divine uncreated, or having any form of consciousness. . It is described as another level of existence with its own kind of physics.

"uncreated divinity" implies something beyond physics, consciousness, God or source, and not a physical world that could host a simulation. So they are not the same

Indeed perception is only cognitive reality.

If perception is only cognitive reality, then the fact you perceive something does not make it true. It only means you are having an experience, and that is why methods of verification matter, whether in science or in inner exploration, spirituality, to be sure of what's "there"

DeepSight:
+
My dear triplechoice. Know that I do not ignore your posts. This particular subject is a difficult one and thats why I have tarried in terms of moving it forward even with Reed. I still hope to do so.

Also much of what you wrote in this thread concerned chieveboy and not me per se.

Let me say however that you are right in your sensing that I am hesitant to share some things. I know that the astral / ethereal worlds are real because I frequent them consciously. I know the process it took me to get to the stage where I can consciously and knowingly frequent those worlds which are just astride this physical world, in a manner of speaking, just beside it. I know how real those worlds are and I know that we all dwell in those worlds simultaneously with this world. Sadly this is not a thing one can ever prove to anyone until the person gets to experience it himself or herself at his or her own time if it is meant for him or her.

I appreciate your honesty about hesitating to share. But I want address a few things

If what you claim is true, that you frequent the astral worlds consciously , then you are in a position to clarify what is actually there, not imagine, speculate or repeat what others have claimed, but speak from your own inner experience .

If you have inne experiences, then speak from them like Sarassin did while he was here. He shared his experiences, he shared methods, and no one could fault him because he spoke from what he lived

And please, what method do you use to validate your inner journeys?. The mind can sometimes project experiences that are real. People have "visited heaven and Hell" during NDE, and what they report often matches what their culture or religion taught them to expect. That does not mean those places exist as they saw them. Their minds constructed experience from stored beliefs.

In the inner worlds realities can be created instantaneously by thought. So how do you know what you are experiencing is "real" and not a projection of your own expectations , or worse, someone else 's?

Yes, this can happen. . But this does not mean there are no genuine OBE or NDE .. There are. There are methods to validate your inner experience to be sure.

DeepSight:
Uncreated divinity?

You replied with "uncreated divinity", followed by a question mark. That does not answer the questions I asked .

If your answer is "uncreated divinity" (which is not the same as the "base reality" you started with). you still haven't explained what that is; how it relates to simulation, or why it should be called a simulation.

"Simulation", "real", and "unreal" are human labels we apply to our perceptions. Ultimate reality, divine consciousness, would not perceive things the way we do. So even if we accept that something uncreated exists, ( It exist) it does not automatically mean this world is a simulation of it. It only means we have a certain perception, and perception, as they say, is not reality..

SIGMATRON:
All created worlds are simulations.

What are they simulating? And how do you know?

DeepSight:
+
My dear brother and friend.

You see, one thing I have noticed about you is that hard physical science is always required to convince you of anything. While understandable and even praise worthy in some instances, it is severely limiting because there is so much more to our experience of this reality than physical science can cover or account for. If we were limited to what physical science can account for, we would all be vastly poorer for it.

This factor has often stumped me in conversations with you because I struggle to put in words of physical science things that actually don't belong there. Things that belong in the meta physical, the spiritual and the experiential.

But think about death. Really really think about it. The challenge we have is that you see the body and the individual as one and the same. I know very well they are not the same. One is a vehicle or tool for the other. A covering for the other.

But think about it. The human beings you relate with on a daily basis are much more than flesh and blood. The faces you see are just that, masks. We have gone through this extensively on the Mind and Matter thread and arrived at no agreement so I will not bother to rehash it here.

I will only say that death presents us with the chance to see that this machine can be stopped. That it can be switched off. And that infers a measure of limitation to its function. The very fact that it can cease to experience a reality which is still going on while it has ceased tells us that it is only part of a wider programme and operation, a piece which can be taken out of that program and operation, unplugged, so to speak. And when unplugged we can see it in all its worthlessness - static and unalive on a true sense because it is unplugged from the ongoing operation. With reflection, this tells us that it was only a tool being used for a partial and particular experience of a larger program or operation and it can exhaust its time, its energy or even its usefulness. There is something inherently made up and artificial about that. An original thing would be one and the same with the operation, and incapable of being "unplugged" from it in such a manner.

In short, it would be incapable of death.

I know this will not resonate with you but it is very hard to put into the scientific words you prefer and insist on. Because it is not a matter of physical science as I said.

Moving on to the fact that it is possible to manipulate our perception.

This is an even bigger proof and it is closer to science. Dwell on it carefully.

1. What we perceive is even a limited and selected range of what is around us. We only perceive based on the capabilities fixed in our physical bodies, we see a very very very small spectrum of what is around us, we feel, smell and hear only a tiny portion as well. This is scientific fact as you know.

2. And yet the little that we perceive can easily be changed! One mushroom, one narcotic and you would be seeing and feeling completely different things! In fact your brain can be manipulated by any amount of methods including chemical methods such that you completely see or hear totally different things and even things that are supposedly non existent! This is extremely telling and demonstrates that the entire experience is changeable and this fact alone severely undermines the reality of everything. It shows that the whole thing could be and likely is a show, a sham and made up. The very fact that you can hallucinate proves this.

Let me not forget to add that I am still not asserting all the above as definite facts. This life is way too mysterious for me to do that. All I am doing is trying to let you see that many things may be possible and we cannot be limited enough to rule out much.

It is entirely possible that your life is a dream and you wake up at death on a bed somewhere else where you have been napping for just a short time and that nap was this life.

PS: Did you ever watch the movie Inception? A dream within a dream within a dream?

And have you ever had a dream and woken up to find that you were dreaming? Then woken up again to find that you were dreaming that you were dreaming and woke up?

I think you misunderstand Lordreed. From my past interactions with him, I know he is open -minded enough to listen to any alternative explanation outside the sciences, as long as it makes sense and can be supported by some evidence, which doesn't have to be scientific evidence.

At the beginning of this conversation, he repeatedly asked you and the other person, "How do you know" . The question signified that he was willing to consider any other explanation you could provide . He didn't demand scientific evidence , he only asked a simple question which you replied to with the culled extract you provided ,which didn't prove anything.


I have discussed the soul, reincarnation and OBE on this forum., and each time, I have issued a disclaimer that they find no scientific support in the sciences or among mainstream scientists, but does not mean they are not true.

I sense you are hesitant to confidently discuss what you know for fear of being labelled gullible for believing in woo -woo stuff by those who easily dismiss anything not supported by mainstream scientists. This shouldn't be.

If you have a method share it. If you have a direct experience , describe it , and let the evidence speak for itself. Anyone who would dismiss them without examination was never interested in any sincere conversation with you.


Not t every truth in the world is scientifically explained. Most people don't know this. The placebo effect, for instance, is used in drug testting and is true , yet it is not scientifically proven. It can be rationally explained to some extent,but not as detailed as scientifically proven truth. Scientists don't know what causes the placebo effect.

Not being able to put it into words is your own difficulty, not proof it cannot be done. Even Juju, as mysterious as it is , can be rationally explained, how much more the soul, which so many people have directly experienced

I wish you would reply me. You hardly reply to me, and don't know why. If you did I would prove that those things you claim cannot be put into words are, in fact, easily explained

LordReed:
I don't really understand why a dead body would make you think life is fake given what we know about life. A dead body behaves exactly how it should under the circumstances. If it behaved differently, I'd have understood but it doesn't. Even if it was a program why would the programmers let you think that it was a sign of life being a program? That to me is a sign it isn't a program/simulation or else they'll just programmed that thought away. Which leads to your mention of our easily manipulated perceptions. If there was some shadowy behind the scenes manipulation going on, why are they leaving you with such thoughts? Why haven't they easily manipulated away your perception of this universe as a simulation?

What an epic response!

The fact that he can entertain the thought that death reveals artificiality, means the simulaton is not influencing his perception, which undermines his claim that perception is easily manipulated.

Freshtruth:
Pls am worried I dreamt of loosing my teeth's like 2 fell off y I shaking inside my mouth meaning pls

You're the only one that can successfully interpret your dream . Each dream symbol is a symbolic representation of something that is uniquely connected to your own life experiences.

However , certain dream symbols have universal meaning or have meaning that can apply nearly to everyone that experiences them.

Dream of losing ones teeth or tooth symbolises the loss of a close family member usually a sibling or a very close friend. When one loses ones tooth at certain point in life one cannot regrow it, like losing life. It can also represent the loss of any other thing that is irreplaceable in ones life.

So based on this ,the dream is a either preparing for something shocking or distressing that is about to happen in your outer life so you not badly shaking by it when it happens or a warning to take action in order to prevent a loss of something irreplaceable in your life.

But don't take this is correct interpretation. Like I said you are the only one who can successfully interpret your dream. One time I had a dream in which I lost my tooth. But it was a a period I was experiencing serious toothache and was worried about losing the tooth . The dream then represent the dissipation of tension created by the fear or worry of losing my tooth, just like wet dreams which helps to dissipate sexual tension but which most people interpret to mean "spirit wife or husband"

So look into your your life for answers to what the dream portends. That is the only way to interpret your dream correctly. During your quite moment ask yourself " what is the meaning of this dream" and write down immediately what comes to your mind.

If you don't get it right the first time, the dream will repeat until you know the answer.

DeepSight:
+
Tried. Banned again.

Don't reply to him directly. Click on the quote icon at the end of his post, copy the quoted text, and then paste it into a new reply. That way your post will appear as a separate response .

chieveboy:
Other than a memory, you find nothing inside of this 'sense of self' or 'awareness of self' that is spoken of. A person holds a memory of what they think they are, and proclaim they are that. This memory is what keeps the person from acting as a goat, or stone. This is their unique MAC identity of which the 'DNS' is their human name. Dissect the 'Id' and its just memory with programs and codes and signatures marauding as DNA.

Computers too, same. Both simply booth up, load dependencies, run the machine, sleep. In sleep, all sense of self-awareness goes to 0 or near that. Both forms of self awareness are after-effects of programming. Both an be programmed. Both are machines, one biological, another man-made.





If there is such a thing as "passive experience of matter", I will let you know. What does it even mean in the reality of things this "passive experience of matter"? define it in your personal understanding of physics or from those online resources of yours.




Why does the very atoms 'arranging' that particular pencil not get 'decide' they would rather do something better with their lives?

That they 'chose' to corporate with this very pencil is an Id or memory in there programmed (via carving) by someone, and the laws of physics takes care of the rest. You will fall back to the explainer on how these things work differently for every other thing.

Nature or life is run by the law of economy, hence it is recursive--building on its template making everything above being below even if not exactly. If so, everything must have a sense of self and must 'maintain' a memory of that, else it wont 'exist'. It will disintegrate even as a human goes mental losing theirs while for others, its disappearance or disintegration.

So do not make it seem like the laws of physics idly or randomly decided to uphold the manifestation of a pencil into place in space and time.

A pencil does not choose. It does not have a life. It does not. " decide" anything. The laws of physics hold it together, not sense of self, not memory, not "carved program"

So when you insist that a pencil has an "I" and that it " cooperates". with its existence, you have left the ground where conversation is possible.

I have said what I needed to say. I will not follow you further down this path because I know where it leads to

Goodbye

chieveboy:
Possession and operation of the 'Id' doesn't work all the same across board for even all living organisms for starters including humans as in the event of 'homo-sapiens' and 'homo sapiens sapiens' upgrade. For some species or possessors of mind, its just okay to exercise the instinctive (robotic or chita) parts of the mind with no little to no usage of the two others not to talk of self awareness despite that the capacity to is imbued.

We are not debating whether all living beings exhibit self -awareness in the same way, or why some seems to express it differently, or even why some hardly ever show it even when they have the capacity to do so.

What we are debating is whether machines have the inherent capacity to exhibit self -awareness at all. I say they don't. .

Ahankara is what gives self -awareness. This faculty is not present in machines. Ahankara is integral to consciousness. It cannot be created in a lab and attached to a machine to make it develop the capacity for self -awareness

Self -awareness is not a matter of degree or expression, it is either present in conscious beings or absent in machines. Your attempt to blur the distinction by talking about variations among living things is irrelevant to the question of whether machines possess any such faculty at all.

When it is spoken of human computers being a recursion of the mind and also the larger computer system housing and running everything called the universe, this is with regards to copying or replicating the main thing for as much and far as is needed or physically possible.

The universe is too vast and mysterious for it to be reduced to the mechanical workings of computer system created by humans. What you are arguing is the same as what some argued in the past when they projected the mechanism of the clock onto to the cosmos.

Your attempt to reduce the cosmos to a computer system contradicts the very spiritual truths you claim you respect

It is a folly to say that the aircraft made out of a bird does not give birth, and for that reason, they are dissimilar. How about that the manner this metal bird gives birth is by being the template for creating more? This is lateral thinking and fractal reasoning. Insisting it must copulate, gestate and give birth is a reasoning only you can produce.

Reproduction by living beings to produce their own kind is not the same as manufacturing by humans to mass produce machines that have no consciousness. Insisting they are the same "is a reasoning only you can produce.

Reproduction is not manufacturing. Don't confuse it.

The 'I' doesn't just stop at and as an idea of self. It plays other deterministic functions like morphology. "as a man thinketh, so is he". If the I is happy, it flows to the face--this is just the dynamic short-term characteristics or function, there is the side of it that deals with nativity or long-term physical morphology from shape of body parts, looks, traits and DNA-ic archetype. So for some possessors of the 'I'-capacity, its just okay to do as much as physical possible even for living oragnisms.

Whether the "I" "does not stop as an idea of self or not". is irrelevant. The question is : Do computers have a sense of self?. Are they aware they exist?. A simple yes or no, not word salad would do

That established, when it is time to replicate the I function of mind which is mandatory for anything to have--even for inanimate physical objects, It doesn't have to say "I am me, I know I am me" as a human would lol, because even for humans, it takes a while for that recognition to occur, and that doesn't take away the existence or possession of that faculty. Sometimes, exhibition and exercising of the ID never happens for a human. Its occurs in varying degrees of counting from 10 to -0++, we would be wrong to conclude they posses the 'I' not.

I did not say living beings become self -aware only when they can affirm the metaphor "I am". The metaphor describes the state of being conscious , being aware of ones existence. New born babies are not yet conscious of their own existence, but that does not mean they lack the capacity to develop it later.

Machines do not possess that capacity at all, which is why the can never exhibit self-awareness at any stage
Self-awareness is a matter of demonstration, not affirmation. Stop interpreting literally what is meant to. be a metaphor.

A pencil must maintain all its atomic structure in orbit, axis and mathematic configuration of the locations of each atom within that sphere as an exhibition of its 'I'-ness. This is as much as it can physically go as far as exercising this mandatory possession of the 'I' 'faculty' or principle of the "I am" that I spoke of earlier for all inanimate things goes for it. 'Forget' all the mathematical configurations and its gone.

A pencil does not "maintain" its atomic structure. Its atoms are held together by the laws of physics, not by any sense of self. If the pencil had an "I", it would need to be aware of itself, which is not..

You are confusing the passive existence of matter with the active experience of consciousness.

So to bring the point home, a MAC address (physical Identity) Firmware/OS/Signature (mind/soul) determines the morphology (looks and shapes) and also the psychology ( behavior) of computers (as part of design thinking). These are what constitutes the 'I' of computers and also the soul. With those, computers wake up and never forget they are those, and yes, the phone never forgets its a phone. It doesn't need say the words lol, even humans rarely say "I am a human" to understand or function as one. They run over a firmware/soul system much as humans, have perceptive sensoria as us, store memories, they DO NOT need to take a shit as humans when they do as in how you would want them to do what passes as "self awareness" like humans. Thats painting reality or creation with human as the epicenter Lol, Nawa o .

You keep trying to give machines qualities they do not have. They have no mind, no soul, no sense of self. They run programs. That's all

A Mac address is not a soul. It is a label, a static identifier assigned by a manufacturer for network communication. It exist so that routers and switches can send data to the correct device. The device itself does not know it has a Mac address. It does not experience , " I am this device"

Firmware and operating system are not minds or souls. They are programmed instruction. Your phone does not. "wake up and never forgets it's a phone". It powers and runs code. There is no consciousness behind it

Moreover Lately, humans have added more depth to computers much as humans had their depths years ago: Its called AI.

You want to blur the lines between simulation and consciousness.

AI replicating the human thinking process is not the same as being conscious that it thinks. An AI is not aware it is thinking nor is it conscious that it exists .

Lol, the fundamental basis for self awareness is what? In other words what do you start providing when giving something the capacity for self awareness? What is that self awareness being aware of? Nawa o

The fundamental basis for self awareness is consciousness. Consciousness , soul, cannot be created and given to machines.

You believe that by assigning a Mac address, ot by writing a firmware, you are conferring the "I am" onto a device. That's like believing that pasting a catalogue number onto a book gives it consciousness
[/b]
I hope you take a moment to reflect on why you need to defend the idea that machines have souls or are self conscious. You are no longer debating but Don quixotiing [/b]

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that this way of thinking is not enlightenment. It is a sign that your mind has become untethered from the basic distinction that make conversation possible, and so the discussion ends here.
Thank you for your time

chieveboy:

You bolded "static identifier" and ",I am" as if they mean the same thing, but they are nott

Since you cannot see the difference let me explain it for you.

Static identifier is a label assigned by a manufacturer while "I am" (Ahankara) is conscious self -awareness of seif.

Static identifier exist as data, not experience while "I am" exist as subjective feeling.

Computers are not aware they have static identifier.. But a being knows it exists

In summary, a static identifier means a computer can be identified by others. It doesn't mean it can identify itself.

For instance , your phone has a. Ip address. That doesn't mean your phone wakes up in the morning and thinks, "I am a phone". It doesn't ponder its existence . You can even change your IP address. But Ahankara is your unique identity which is integral to your being. It cannot be changed anyhow you like.

You have conflated being identified with seif awareness. They are not the same

If you still struggle to see the difference, after reading my clear explanation, then I was correct you have no business debating these topics

chieveboy:
Its takes sense to make sense of things.

Coming from someone who believes Mac address is equivalent to self -awareness, that is rich.

You think computers and all inanimate objects have consciousness , and proved you cannot distinguish between a static identifier and the experience of ,"I am," .

And now, you want to lecture others about making sense?

The irony is lost in you. Next time don't jump in to debate topics you are incapable of debating.

chieveboy:
Please you want to grasp the semantics of that "misquote" and see if you still hold this viewpoint. It should naturally occur after you respond to the earlier challenge on parsing that paragraph..

Oh. You finally admit you misquoted me ?


Why did you deliberately change my words to misrepresent me and when called out for it, claimed you only carried out syntactic operation for flow and also that the meaning of the original statement did not change?

If the meaning did not change and you knew it wouldn't change after your so-called imaginary syntactic operation, why change it in the first place?
You cannot answer this because you know the meaning changed hence the strange word, "backverting " you invented to make it difficult to disprove you.Now, the latest is "parsing the paragraph" It is a shame

You have spent paragraphs upon paragraphs deflectimg Instead of admitting one simple truth, you were wrong

The ostrich buries its head in the sand. You bury yours in invented words , obfuscation, and false justification. But no matter what you do, the truth has a way of being seen

I am not sure this will work. Eckists are if religions or path must define one are steered towards being themselves, and so it happens that you met with the rathe blunt one. Note that on the other thread on Masters, you have tried this same line of invoking the gods of eckankar to come to your aid to no avail, I wonder why you
believe it will work. .

You have started again. Please can you bring evidence from the thread where I invoked the "gods of Eckankar"? And why would I invoke Eckankar fictitious gods? What for?

I did not invoke Eckankar gods. I was observing that your behaviour reflects on the group you represent. If you say Eckists are "steered towards being themselves", then your behaviour, refusing to admit your mistakes, accusing others wrongly and inventing strange words to justify it , is what "being yourself" looks like, then that says something about what Eckankar produces these days.

But we did, we presented how ancient text described the different chambers of the mind and how all of it is literally parallel to how computers work without exception. Not wanting to indulge in micro-sight when I ignored your response about the fourth chamber responsible for the 'I' which computers too have..

Who is the "we" you are referring to here?. No other person on this thread has mentioned the four parts of the mind. You only described three and deliberately omitted the most important one and now want to justify it with a vague "micro -sight" statement, your usual tactics when you don't want to own up to something.

I related Eckankars notion on how creation occurs and the idea of beings stationed to man the system, where they perform all of the above including and not limited to imprisonments, trapping, release, discipline, modify, edit, delete, etc. Computers are even noted to have 'viruses' and all that..

You have projected modem invention, computers onto Eckankar's mythology.

You may not be aware so lets indulge this again ignoring "caricature" seeing that it is a 'reach' problem and not based on any fundamentals of what I said.

Ignoring "caricature" seeing that it is a "reach" problem and not based on any fundamentals of what I said " , is not different from speaking in tongues. You alone know what you have said there. It is vague.

All computers have the Ahankara. For computers all over the world, its starts with unique firmware and OS signatures also the Mac Address. One of the reason I keep hammering on linear thinking is that it limits your mind and blurs its vision.

You are projecting. You don't need to psychoanalyse how my mind works as it won't help you to win the debate. Concentrate on what you have to say. Do that very well and let the public judge by my response if what you think of me is true. Stop the gaslightimg. That is what I said..

And no, computers have no Ahankara. MAC address and the others don't correspond to it.
.

The internet, Networks, etc will not work the moment systems and networks cease having their Ahankara and the three others. Moreover no animate or in-animate object lacks this.

I am sure this will steer that reaction from you again and its better that way.man.

Arguing that computers have Ahankara proves that you have no clue what it actually is.

MAC address is a static identifier assigned by a manufacturer while Ahankara is what gives animate objects conscious awareness, the sense of "I am"

A computer does not know it exists. it does not wake up and think about its day. It has no subjective experience, no sense of self.

If you think a Mac address is equivalent to self -awareness, you have no business debating these topics. .
.

. One would expect that based on the elucidation that Eckankar was derived from most, if not all ancient religions, you will be wise enough to not bring up any attack from that angle due to the potential of associative generalization that could occur where an attack on one is an attack on all, but no, your mind no reach that side.

[b] I understand why a someone like you would defend Eckankar mythology. It is because of what they have made you believe.

It is euphemism to declare that "Eckankar was derived from most, if not all ancient traditions". The reality is this :it was created by Paul Twitchell in the 1960s. He copied from Sikhism, Buddhism, and even Scientology. .

The book, "The Making of a spiritual Movement" by David Lane documents this extensively.

"Confession of a God seeker" by Ford Johnson, a former higher initiate of Eckankar who helped to make the group popular all over the world, exposed the truth behind the religion.

But be warned. If you want to read those books, do o so in secret. They are banned books within the group. If any other current member know you have read them or reading them, you would be reported and sanctioned and or even removed from the group.

Twitchell invented a fictional lineage to give his creation credibility. It was heartbreaking and almost affected my mind when I got to know the truth. Not so, for some others around the world. It resulted in suicide and shattered lives. I know of a high initiate in Nigeria who angrily went to the Eck centre in his locality to take back all the items he donated to furnish it. Why? Ihe felt duped after knowing the truth.But I'm a survivor. I survived it. And now, after more than 25 years after, you that found Eckankar on Nairaland, want to tell me what?

Attacking Eckankar fabricated mythology found in books like "The Far country" The Tigers Fangs " and " The Tallons of Time " is not attacking authentic esoteric traditions Twitchell stole from . Those traditions stand on their own. They don't need Eckankar's distortions to validate them

. I don't blame those still in Eckankar. I blame the system that traps them, just as I was trapped. But when anyone defends the system's lies, they become part of the problem..


.

Lol, lets assume we even gobble down all the above hook line and sinker but make the exception of thinking deeper.

1: "There is no inside or outside"

2: Both inner and outside are a continuum

Doesn't this make whatever that is inside this continuum not be anything one can accept and still have an "on the other hand" to say in same sentence? By the way, where is this "framework" indexed? Outside? Inside?

Lets move on sir:

How much do you know about the boldened 'continuum' aspect of the universe, and does your understanding of this phenomena and principle lead you into anything near the realization that this is very quality or nature of this continuum in manifesting or reflecting physically, (and in other compatible frameworks) its very nature, quality and properties from top to bottom as in the practical example of man. its [url]Fractal[/url] aspect as a Romanesco broccoli for one?

In other words if we backvert the paragraph above and ask is if the fractal nature of this same plant is a representation of the continuum?

Does the answers posits then that

1: Nothing is original or exclusive physically?.

2: Given 1 above, are all things physical man and nature-made not mimicries of the continuum without exception given that exceptions are not possible?

You don't understand what "continuum" means. It doesn't mean everything is identical and indistinguishable. It means everything is connected interrelated without fundamental separation.

This is the only response I can afford you for now. It is difficult to make sense of the things you write. The bolded " It's fractal aspect as a Romanesco broccoli" is vague. Too many convuluted statements that is hard to make sense of.

If you edit your comment and send it again, I will reply to it. But for now, no. I can no longer stress myself rereading and rereading. This iis not English. You even used the word " backvert" without putting in quotes . That is you talking to yourself.

.

Oh you actually murdered your science up there .

You murdered science" is not an argument. It is dismissal without substance. If you think I'm wrong about cosmology show me where. Explain how the universe being space-time is incorrect. Provide sources and demonstrate your understanding .

chieveboy:
Source https://www.nairaland.com/3559711/man-machine
Lordreed, Deepsight

The above quote is not necessary, its just for more perspective. It is quoted from a 2017 thread here on NL.

I aim to give my summative take on the argument if we are in a simulative environment or not. My take is that we are. Further, that contrary to what Triplechoice asserts that no mystical path propagates that idea, I wish to state that almost all the advanced do in fact, taking Eckankar as an example.

Note that the outer form and teachings of Eckankar are an off-shoot of sort of Sikhism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and almost all esoteric paths stripped of what the modern day founder will call digressions and detours to the ultimate focus on Soul returning back to God (true home) rather than psychic phenomena or demonstration of powers, The beautiful heavens with streets of gold, Aliens, the rulers of the planes and all such Fantastics and Wowsers. Note also that not all who register for school go through the school, so they can be uninformed.

Eckankar teaches that there are worlds of non-creation and there are the created ones. We can close the chapter on whether this world is a computer simulation or is reality if we ask two fundamental questions:

a: If "God" created heavens and earth, where was he living?

b: If God created a world for living in, what are the chances it is not a state-of-the-art computer where perception is only possible here only via instrumentation

Bonus question: If it is not a simulation, and not created by any entity, why the requirement for using instruments of perception before perception is possible in it?





Eckankar teaches that a being is placed in charge of this world of creation who is part of the creation process. The goal is to provide a conducive platform for the possibility of conditions that lead to pain or pleasure, joy or sadness and all things that can only exists due to its opposite. In the true non-simulated world, these are not possible.

How was it pulled of? This being takes on the pure singular bandwidth of reality emanating from the pure worlds above their own, forks it into two primary streams as the positive and negative. This in a sense is a corruption of purity even as for the above to reach the below, it must be stepped down or diluted with more corruption. The very template of this being is fashioned for this job. He forged other beings as well and placed them in charge of the other levels of manifestation lower than their own and down to the physical plane. These are the sub rulers or "God" depending on who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to meet them.

The above said, it was stated expressly that these worlds are impure and reality here is only via illusion (duality)--a play with the light as in pointing a laser at a cat to catch. Illusion? If I define this "Illusion" as "simulation", someone on here would not be so discerning to know it is all the same.

So if the ruler wishes to do their job keeping the created world in order, wouldn't they fashion it to update, delete, generate, store and sustain, etc?

If one is in doubt, the above quote from a 2017 thread may shed more light, about how humans actually simply copy the working nature of the ultimate computer itself.

Anyone asking you to provide where in any ancient religion it is written verbatim that the world is a a giant computer and that we are in a simulation should let you know where it is written in the year that bird was made that the B2 bomber is a copy of the bird.

...I mean, the idea that it sounded reasonable to request that ancients texts of 10k+ years ago must state that the inventions of later years are a biomimicry of them is just crazy.

You have finally revealed your mission on this thread which I already hinted at when you jumped in to misquote me and use it to accuse me of inconsistency.

Now, you have continued from where you stopped after refusing to take responsibility for your wrong accusation of me. I really wonder what you are learning in Eckankar. Eckist are not known to behave the way you do. Too much ego on display.

Listen, I did not say ancient religious texts did not mentioned simulation. Why would they use the word.? I said no authentic esoteric traditions teaches or describe anything that can be compared to how a computer operates. why? . Because what they taught in the past about the creative process, how the world came to be, has not changed

They taught and still teach that the creation of the world was first an inner process before Its manifestation in the outer. The outer is a "reflection" of what went before in the inner.

This same process is what we are here to learn and and master so we become co-creators .

So , what in this can be compared to the universe being a simulation created by advanced beings to trapped souls and harvest them?

I asked you to provide evidence for your claim they were referring to simulation in their own way. What you brought was caricatured version of "As above so below. So below as above" : "Computer up , Computer below" and deliberately omitting Ahankara which exposes everything.

And please don't present Eckankar mythology about the inner world as fact. It's fiction. Everyone knows this ,except members of the group. Even some Eckist are aware but choose to remain silent.
.
Modified. They teach that the outer universe is not separate from the ones that precedes it. They say there is no inside or outside. Both the inner and outer exist as a continuum. The universe is not an object in space, but time and space itself. Computer simulations , on the other hand, are objects in time and space, created within an existing framework.

This is the difference simulation proponents cannot erase.

So don't believe anyone who tells you the universe is an object created by advanced beings in time and space . They have it backwards.

chieveboy:
I will reply the below now:

And that's because you can't provide evidence for your syntactic operation and also demonstrate " backverting". It is ok. I will let go of that because I see you have a pathological inability to admit your mistake when you are wrong.

Let me know why your kind of mind won't work for these things. Note the boldened.

Please drop the gaslightimg talk. Focus on what you have to say so we can see how your own mind really works.

The "boldened" has not proven correspondence, "As above so below, So below,so above.In fact, it proves ,from what I explained, that the computer is an imitation of the real thing, the human mind. And this is where you have completely missed it. Correspondence is not referring to equivalence of objects between planes but about similarities dissimilarities , and relationship.

You listed three parts of the mind and deliberately omitted the fourth part, the Ahankara, because you knew it would render your argument invalid.

The Ahankara is the. "I" factor , the "I am" . This is what gives us individual identity and self -awareness .And it is completely absent in computers . Computers have no sense of self.They are not aware they exist or even aware they are merely replicating the human thinking process. They only process mechanically data feed into them. You cannot use a computer to replace your mind when it is completely destroyed. But you can replace your computer with another one if it is either stolen or destroyed. In fact, you need a sound mind to operate a computer in in the first place.

The same thing with the universe. It is a living thing. It is conscious and alive with diverse live forms. Computers are dead circuitry. There is no correspondence between them at the fundamental level.Those arguing for computer simulation of the world have only found something similar operating in nature and used it to make a false conclusion, like the blind men who touched different parts of the elephant and declared they each know what the whole animal was.

The attached is an image of a modern B2 bomber which was heavily inspired by the ancient peregrine falcon.
When you kind of reasoning is applied to this, one would be projecting the modern into the ancient.
A simple task of drawing parallels wont work.\

This is even worse.. There is no correspondence here. The B2 bodily design was inspired by that of the peregrine Falcon. But inspiration is not identity.The thing inspired is not the same as the thing that inspired it.

The B2 does not depend on the bird for its existence, neither does the bird depend on the B2 for its existence They don't affect each other in anyway. If Falcons starts to go extinct, it wouldn't because of the B2 bombers having issues.

So where is the correspondence? .

If we do an in house sanity check about whether I was projecting anything into esoteric teachings, we will do it this way:

. You don't know what you want to do. The "in house sanity check" will certainly turn out positive for you because you deliberately omitted, Ahankar from your list to create false equivalence between the human mind and computers and then use this to project onto the cosmos.

So don't waste your time doing any sanity check. The result is already known by me and anyone following this.

1: We will employ a concept you propagated here in the line of 'as above, so below'. This means the esoteric teachings (dealing with all things "above" dove-tails into the most mundane form of manifestation or the physical. If so, one can never be wrong drawing parallels because parallelism is the rule of manifestation where the mystical or spiritual gives birth or more apt 'morphs' or 'dovetails' into the physical

No. This is not what I "propagated" You have changed it as usual to fit own narrative. I did not say "all things above dovetails into the most mundane form of manifestation in the physical".

I provided the full quote, "As above, so below. So below,as above and explained it has to do with correspondence. What is true on one plane of existence finds correspondence in all planes of existence. In other words, when something because true "above" it automatically becomes true "below" and vice versa.. As above, so below . So below, as above is not about equivalent objects between planes but relationship that exist between them: the below affecting the above, the above affecting the below.

It is like the relationship that exists between the computer generated figures which appears in your phone each time you check your bank balance. The figures are a reflection of physical cash, the source, the bank is saving on your behalf. The reflection on your phone also exist as real money like the physical cash in the bank. You can spend it through transfers. This analogy,though not perfect, explains correspondence. As above, so below ". And this was what I "propagated ", not the caricature you came up with, " dovetails in the into the mundane"....

2: We can have Deepsight and Lordreed check out the esoteric meaning of Manas, Chitta and the Bhuddi. Their goal is to isolate the fundamental functional principles behind each and do same for the computer. Then they compare the two side by side if both are dissimilar.

No need to call on them. You have distorted the truth by removing Ahankar from the list calling on them to serve as judges is you trying to fool them with your distortion of the truth. The computer does not find correspondence in the human mind because of the absence of the "I am". No way you can twist this without exposing how your mind works