₦airaland Forum

HALCYON44:
A mother is the subject
Beats up is the verb( concord)
Her daughter ( object)
Because she was drunk( adverb of reason) modifies the verb phrase "beats up"
Definitely the daughter is the one that is drunk. If it's the mother that is drunk. The sentence will be the "drunk mother "beats up her daughter

You got it very wrong
Look at sentence below with the same structure and tell me who was drunk?

"A Father beat up his daughter because he was drunk "

Hillarie:
No, sir. Semantics doesn't work that way. It's an ambiguous sentence. That is to say that it can mean different things.
While you're very correct about the adverbial clause modifying the verbal phrase "beat up", (even though it was erroneously written as "beats up" ) it still doesn't explain whether it's the mother who was drunk or the daughter. Read up on ambiguity in language.

My dear ,each of the constituent parts of the sentence have their function . If you know what they're ,you won't argue this with me.

The adverbial clause, "because she was drunk" is performing the function of an adverb, and adverbs can only modify verbs, adjectives, and another adverb, not nouns.

The clause is modifying the action, "beats up" and not describing the daughter as drunk.
Please read up grammatical function to understand this better.

"A father beat up his daughter because he was drunk " ,is the same kind of sentence.

You cannot argue in the above that it's the daughter that was drunk.

It's the mother who was drunk, not the daughter.

The adverbial clause of reason, "because she was drunk" functions to modify the phrasal verb, "beats up" in the main clause, "A mother beats up her daughter" to tell us the reason for the action of beating up.

"because she was drunk" is modifying the phrasal verb, "beats up", and not describing the daughter as drunk.

If the daughter is the drunk, then the correct sentence will be,

A mother beats up her daughter who was drunk.

FRANCISTOWN:
Nwanne, everyone is born an atheist.
I already gave you an explanation and this should not even be debatable topic.

I don't know why we always need to break things down to our christian brothers especially.

Atheism is anyone that doesn't have the ability to believe, not just anyone who has the ability to disbelieve. Whether as a child or as an adult.

If I said p1 = Δp + p2 , you prolly do not understand that formula or If I spoke in a foreign tongue, you simply do not understand. Your brain cannot process what it doesn't understand.

There are adults in China that if you prolly talked anything about God to 'em, they'll prolly just look at you like you are sick.
Their brain just lack the ability to understand how such things can ever work.

And I've told you that. If babies were raised in environments where they've never heard about deities. By the time they are grown, if anyone asked them about deities. They'd just go blank, the same way you'll go blank if I presented a strange formula to you.

@ the bolded, I'm not a Christian please.

Babies are not born atheist. It's what you have been made to believe by other atheist before you.

You're relying on an incomplete definition for atheism to label babies as atheist. You're defining it as a lack of belief in gods,and ending it there. What of the "due to the absence of verifiable evidences for gods" Include the other part and see if you make sense

Modified. 1. You lied about China. There are no such adults in China who haven't heard the word god or what's called god in Chinese. Because you hear that China is a predominate atheist country, you just assume the majority there are atheist
Not true.

To put it a proper context, predominate atheist country means, China is a country where we have more atheist than anywhere else in the world. It doesn't mean the majority are atheist. They have their own traditional religion which most of them subscribe to
It's atheist propaganda talk to declare China an atheist country. It's the government that's atheist,not everyone or majority Only a few are atheist when you consider the entire population


2. Not knowing about deities shouldn't translate into atheism
You're saying that because that's the only thing you know or can think of
You can describe them as indifferent or neutral. That's better

FRANCISTOWN:
You already answered your own question. Tizizist, is not a concept of believe or a non believe.
It basically just a word.
And I simply did not understand, therefore I have a non-understanding of the word. I lack the understanding of the word.

Theism is a believe in deities, and babies simply do not understand deities., they have a "non-believe" of that believe . They lack the believes in what they do not understand. Simply atheism.

I'm afraid you're only willing to see things through the lens of your atheistic position.

Why not born neutral, agnostic , irreligious or even indifferent?

Why are atheists the only ones making such claim about babies?

Remember I said talk like yours are psychological gimmick to get people into accepting something as true without questioning it. Calling it a psychological gimmick is putting it euphemistically. It's actually a lie,a brainwashing tool used by cult groups to control the thinking of their followers.


If you do a little research on this, by visiting the site , " Psychology Today" you will find different variants of it so you know what you're actually doing without you being fully aware . Other atheist are making the same claim everywhere,and because of that you think it's the correct thing to say.



Nothing wrong if you choose non belief, atheism,but to label every baby as atheist is wrong. Nothing substantial to support your claim.


The adult atheist lack of belief is founded on something, the absence of any verifiable evidences for gods and the supernatural. Babies have no such considerations. They have not considered any evidence for or against anything to lack belief or disbelieve.


Babies are born neutral, neither believing or disbelieving anything.atheism.

They shouldn't be labeled as atheist just because of the presence of theist . It's casting them in a particular mould even before they're ready to form their own minds on anything.

No one is born an atheist. If that were true we would be seeing evidences of babies of certain age everywhere displaying strong apathy for anything God or the spiritual once the topic is introduced to them for the first time.

FRANCISTOWN:
When a baby boy is born and raised within an environment where no one says anything about God and prolly doesn't hear anything about God. By the time the child is 20.

If anyone walked up to the guy and says anything about God to him.

To the guy, the question doesn't make any sense to him, and it's not his fault. The question just doesn't make sense to him.
That is called Igtheism, a sub category of atheism.

The guy won't suddenly become an Igtheist, he will only be maintaining his position from infantry.

It's not even a topic worthy of debate. Every child is born non-theist

It will not also make sense to him if you walk up to him and talk about "Igtheism" or the other non theism

Atheism is an active position and not a passive one. The term, atheist, is used to describe a particular kind of behaviour displayed by those who are convinced about something, the non existence of God. It's not just non belief in a God alone due to not knowing it..It's a position one has taken against theism.

And in fact, you cannot declare lack of absence of belief in something you once believed in before.
Because you now know the truth,you can only disbelieve it and not lack a belief in it .

It's even hilarious listening to former theist , now atheist,declaring they now lack a belief in God. How is that even possible?

For that to happen,the person"s brain would have been " formated" to the extent that every trace of God beliefs are removed.

A former theist, now atheist, still has some residual of their past beliefs about gods or God firing in their brains at the background to make it impossible to completely lack a belief in gods. They can only disbelieve.

It's only those born in non religious homes that may claim a lack of belief because they don't know what it means to belief in a God. It's not what they have experienced before.

FRANCISTOWN:
That you don't know of it already makes you a none -believer,a Non-thiest, therefore an atheist.
Do you believe/disbelieve whether 3 rings can be shared amongst 2 fathers and 2 sons?

Then how come you're talking about what you don't know and taking a position against it?

If you don't know it you won't talk about it, reject it or be aware of your stance against it.

There's something that's common with statements such as, " everyone is born in sin" , "people are born gay" and people are born atheist" . It's to postulate people into accepting something as true without questioning it

It's a well known psychological gimmick which I thought you should be aware of. It takes away ones free will and denies one the freedom to choose the kind of life they want to live and learn from it.

We are all unique creatures and so ,it's not scientifically possible for everyone to be bom with the same tendencies.

FRANCISTOWN:
You cannot believe in what you do not have an idea of. Babies do not have an idea of the concept of a God. Therefore, they are not theists. And atheist simply means "Not-a-thiest"

Can you disbelieve what you don't know of?

FRANCISTOWN:
Wait, in what context did you ask the question?
I might be failing to understand your question.

You said everyone is born atheist. I disagree with that. A baby is born neutral and that's what's generally accepted to be true.

There's no evidence anywhere that babies are born atheist or any of the labels you have used.

One's behaviour is largely influenced by what they have made from the impression they have received from their environment.


Babies cannot make much from their immediate environment to be labeled as an atheist who actively rejects the idea of a god .

FRANCISTOWN:
It's not about labels it's not about behaviours. It's about what makes sense to an individual.

Who's this individual? The new born?

FRANCISTOWN:
budaatum was actually right when she said the below.



Anyone who has no idea about the concept of gods/deities is also an atheist.

There are different categories under atheism.
There is igtheism,
Apatheism,
Agnostic atheism, just like budaatum and yourself.
There is antitheist atheism. e.tc.

Therefore, everyone is born an atheist.

Is atheism all about the label or the behaviour itself?

budaatum:
Was born an atheist, and was not indoctrinated into believing in gods at an early age, and was taught about them instead, starting with ancient English, Greek and Roman gods in school, and Egyptian gods at home (dad was learning about them).

Only got to understand people believe in gods when I met Nigerians in their environment, and it was absurd to me considering they also believed oyinbo rats spoke.

I think, the correct thing, from what you explained up there, is that you were born without any knowledge of what a god is, and not that you were born an atheist.

Babies lack the neural development to actively believe or disbelieve a god. So they cannot be born atheist, instead they're born neutral, not believing or disbelieving anything.

NairaLTQ:
The Question was simple:
Is the Software WITHIN the memory of a HDD Tangible or not tangible?

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the SOftware being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

I only ask, can you be consistent in saying that ANY Nomenclature that has Effects on the Physical Hardware is Tangible?

Your last question makes no sense. Read and read till you understand why I say so.

Tangibility or intangibility is a broad term . Everything can't have the same kind of tangibility or intangibility So insisting one use it to mean the same thing in all situation is unhelpful for anyone.

We can refer to a software as intangible,but it's not the same intangible as when talking of spirit.

Another thing is that, you're the only one defining a software as intangible part of a computer that's not measurable. It's never defined that way anywhere.

NairaLTQ:
Of course for the same context, no difference.
So, you will be consistent with your definition.

You're very vague here. Which " for the same context" are you talking about?

First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible


[b]Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

. You're clowing yourself. If you have no hidden agenda, which has been exposed in your conversation with Jessica ,why should you bother yourself with ,the consistency of the word, tangible or intangible when discussing software? A software ,when defined in some dictionaries is described as intangible, but not the same intangible as spirit.


This was why I said the meaning of word is determined by the context in which it's used. You haven't created any real context yet you're looking for consistency.

Are you discussing spirit or a computer software?

He said,
"I don't know what the Constitution says, I only know the Bible "

This statement reveals why he was easily scammed.

NairaLTQ:
The reason is that you have to be consistent with your definition of Tangibles

Do you not trust your understanding of the word Tangible again?

What you don't know is this,

The meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it's used. So for that, you cannot demand for consistency in meaning. Yes, you can't .

Focus on yourself and put in the effort in telling your audience in what context you're using , tangible, so you're understood clearly.

But the problem is, you're neither here nor there. One minute you're lecturing about software,the next you have jumped to criticising and insulting those whom you claim want physical quantification of God before they believe. Why ?

If you're demanding for consistency, then you must be consistent yourself.

NairaLTQ:
You have just explained why you refused to accept the definition of Tangible and now when I decided to adopt your definition, it still scares you.



Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

Why do you want to know my position?

You can't tell your opponent how they must debate with you or how they must use a, word to mean only one thing when they're different meanings attached to it.

Just argue your points and everyone will understand you. That's all .

You have been asked at different times to define spirit or to come up with your true intention behind your mention of a software.

Each time, what you do is to ignore the question. Now the same you want your own questions to be answered or we choose something. You're not ready

TenQ:
I know more about softwares or hardware than you ever think you know and this is why we are having problems with understanding BASIC things that need no argument.

Let me come down with you to ground zero and make basic explanations (which you can confirm about the software written i any machine)

Basic information about Information and Data written on Any Hardware
1. Softwares in a memory device is usually recorded in formated forms using appropriate file system format of disk partitions with data all in binary format on magnetic devices as magnetic North or South polarity, in Flash memories as ON or OFF in array of memory cells made from floating-gate transistors, in Optical Disks as Good or Bad Reflectance from microscopic data pits and lands arranged in a spiral track on the disk's surface etc.

2. The Recorded data on the memory devices do NOT add nor subtract any Material (such as atoms, molecules, electrons etc) from the physical device

3. If the File system on a memory device is NOT recognised by a machine, the data on it doesn't exist to the machine because it is NOT recognisable.

4. The same applies to the format in which a software is compiled on a memory device: even if the filesystem is recognized and the format in which the software is compiled on the machine is NOT, the software is NOT recognised. Like a software compiled for Windows OS will not run on a Mac or an Android or a Linux device (Unless we use an Emulator to translate the compiled code to the appropriate instruction format for the target OS)

5. Data or Information is erased from an appropriate hardware by either overwriting the data with random binary data or re-writing a new (different) memory partition on the memory device.
6. Since Data on a physical device Exist BUT is NOT physical, then it is NOT Tangible


Do these make sense or which one do you disagree with?

What kind of human being are you? You didn't read what I said?

If you want to show you know more about softwares then take it to the right section .

You're acting irrationally by bringing in something else into a thread that's focused on spirit.

Na wah o

NairaLTQ:
Hi, This is TenQ
I gat a ban from overzealous nairaland spam bot

I think I have solved your problem. The only issue is that you MUST be consistent with how you use the Term TANGIBLE.

Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

It's you who has the problem of not knowing what's a figure of speech.

What you're trying to do now is medicine after death.. You're no more in a position to tell anyone here how they must use the word tangible or how they must be consistent with it.

You're not just presenting an exposition on computer softwares, but using it as an extended metaphor to prove something you're not bold enough to mention.

Not only that, you have turned the whole conversation into a debate,a competition, you must win at all cost.

And so, sticking to your definition of tangible or how it must be consistently used is not only stupid,but also conceding defeat to you .

You can't be the moderator and judge in a debate between you and your opponent.

If I were to choose, I would choose both. But I'm not choosing here.

Just go ahead using the software to prove indirectly that the God of the Bible ,even though you say it's not measurable, tangible ,exist or is real. That's your intention and everyone is fully aware of it


I won't fall for your trap.

TenQ:
I think many of you have ignored my use of the definition of Tangible Realities of characterisable by Mass or Dimension (Length, Area or Volume) and Energy instead many were using tangible as
1. A Figure of Speech
2. Noun
3. Adjective (split into two definitions)
a. Describing a reality that is touchable or Handlable
b. Describing a reality that is untouchable but has effect on other objects

Example:
As an adjective, it describes something that is perceptible by touch or capable of being touched; it refers to something concrete, real, or definite. For example, "She wanted tangible evidence to support her claim."

As a noun, "tangible" refers to something that is fixed and visible, usually an object or item that can be perceived by touch. For example, "The company's assets include both tangible and intangible properties." In this context, "tangible" refers to physical assets like buildings, machinery, or inventory.


In our case: Tangible with respect to Software as used is treated as an Adjective
In the sentence "A software is NOT tangible," "tangible" is an adjective modifying the noun "software." It describes the characteristic of software as not being capable of being touched or physically perceived. So, "tangible" is functioning as an adjective here, expressing the quality of physical presence or tangibility.

The example of //Her Grief is tangible:
In the figure of speech "Her grief was tangible," the word "tangible" is used metaphorically to describe the intensity or palpability of the emotion of grief. It suggests that the grief is so profound and real that it feels as though it can be touched or physically sensed, even though emotions are abstract and intangible by nature. In this context, "tangible" is still functioning as an adjective, but it's used figuratively to evoke a vivid sense of the depth and concreteness of the emotion being described.

For the avoidance of doubt and for clarity
An adjective is a part of speech that modifies or describes a noun or pronoun, providing additional information about its qualities or attributes. Adjectives can indicate size, color, shape, age, personality, emotions, and many other characteristics of the noun they modify.


My Definitions :
https://www.nairaland.com/8069157/atheists-costly-error-assumption-everything#129569120
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Thus: Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects


The Objective Remain the Same:
Tangible here mean: Any Reality than can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time Tangible does NOT mean having Effects (or else Gravity, Electric Field and Magnetic field will be tangible)
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?



Conclusion:
1. If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

2. If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.

Do we agree to these two basic rules. We have an understanding asd a rule of Engagement

CC:
Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord
TheBillyonaire LordReed triplechoice: FRANCISTOWN: jaephoenix: JessicaRabbit

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

You want tangible to mean what you want it to mean so you can fool everyone. You're not serious.

You insisted tangible was used metaphorically in the statement, "Her grief is tangible" and I corrected you. Instead of acknowledging your
error and just proceed with other things , you want to bring in confusion with this long talk



Tangible in that sentence is an adjective describing the quality of her grief. That it's tangible . Because she felt it ( the emotions of grief) intensely, it affected her brain and body.

Whether with her hands or body, the truth was that she felt it as tangible. It wasn't a figure of speech.

If you can't understand this simple thing,then you will struggle to understand what others have been explaining in English language for you.

And you have been struggling as can be seen from the evidence of your responses to others here. You're not responding directly. Meaning you don't fully comprehend what you read.
Just use pidgin please . You won't be criticized for using that. Proficiency in English language is not a mark of intelligence.

TenQ:
The Figure of Speech of "Her grief is tangible" is: Metaphor

Why:
In this metaphor, the word "tangible" is used to describe the quality of the grief being experienced by "her."
Grief, which is an abstract emotion, is being compared to something tangible or palpable, suggesting that it feels very real and can almost be physically sensed or touched.

No . You are very wrong to say it's a metaphor.

A metaphor is a direct comparison between two unlike objects to show the similarities which exist between them.

What we have in the statement, Her grief is tangible " is a a description of her grief as tangible .In other words, it's a post modification of "her grief. Tangible here is used as an adjective to describe her grief. A premodification of her grief will read, " Her tangible grief"

It would be a metaphor if it reads "Her grief is an hurricane" . In this instance one is making a direct comparison between her grief and another thing , an hurricane.


Her grief is not abstract emotion. What kind of nonsense is this now? How can grief which people feel within themselves be described as abstract. I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word abstract. It's the word, grief that's an abstract noun and not the emotion of grief It describes.

TenQ:
Then why ae you avoiding to answer DIRECTLY simple Questions?
Are you afraid of the implications, so you will rather deny the obvious for the sake of remaining in an argument?

I dare you answer each question with not more than one sentence each.
Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

I'm not an atheist. I keep reminding you of this. I already answered your first set of questions . It's on page 4 of the other thread in case you have forgotten.

Since I'm not an atheist,I won't answer the above untill you tell me where they're leading to, and why I must answer it.

Emusan:
Can you kindly point me to where the question was answered?

Go to page 4 of the thread by Veecruz, "Atheist says spirits is nothing because it's non physical and invisible"

You will find my responses to the questions there. Please come back after reading to tell me what you think, and also don't forget to ask your friend TenQ the reason for the questions . He has refused to answer directly.

TenQ:
Is it UNTRUE that every Figure of Speech must be interpreted?


This is exactly what you've done!

Every
figure of speech is interpreted correctly by those who understand it, and must be interpreted by everyone who wants to know what it refers to.

I asked you what figure of speech is contained in the statement " Her grief is tangible"? Figures of speech have names. So don't just say it's a figure of speech and end it there.

Is it a simile, metaphor, hyperbole?

TenQ:
I know more about softwares or hardware than you ever think you know and this is why we are having problems with understanding BASIC things that need no argument.

Im not challenging on software and the discussion here is not about that.

Everyone understands what you're saying,but the question we keep asking you here is what's the point of all this display to show you know more than others?

Let me come down with you to ground zero and make basic explanations (which you can confirm about the software written i any machine)

Basic information about Information and Data written on Any Hardware
1. Softwares in a memory device is usually recorded in formated forms using appropriate file system format of disk partitions with data all in binary format on magnetic devices as magnetic North or South polarity, in Flash memories as ON or OFF in array of memory cells made from floating-gate transistors, in Optical Disks as Good or Bad Reflectance from microscopic data pits and lands arranged in a spiral track on the disk's surface etc.

2. The Recorded data on the memory devices do NOT add nor subtract any Material (such as atoms, molecules, electrons etc) from the physical device

3. If the File system on a memory device is NOT recognised by a machine, the data on it doesn't exist to the machine because it is NOT recognisable.

4. The same applies to the format in which a software is compiled on a memory device: even if the filesystem is recognized and the format in which the software is compiled on the machine is NOT, the software is NOT recognised. Like a software compiled for Windows OS will not run on a Mac or an Android or a Linux device (Unless we use an Emulator to translate the compiled code to the appropriate instruction format for the target OS)

5. Data or Information is erased from an appropriate hardware by either overwriting the data with random binary data or re-writing a new (different) memory partition on the memory device.
6. Since Data on a physical device Exist BUT is NOT physical, then it is NOT Tangible


Do these make sense or which one do you disagree with?

. Please take all of the above to the right section or connect it with the op, spirit. You're derailing the thread if you don't want to be honest.

@TenQ . Since you want to continue fooling yourself,see you blunder fully explained below.

This was your original question.

TenQ:
The question is valid:

Example:
IF the apparent gravitational pull on the moon reduced by 5% because of the prescence of a large asteroid passing beside it, how much energy will a man of 60 kg use to jump up by 1.1 m?

The above was what I described as hypothetical situation or question.

You replied later by removing the "if" to make it read exactly like this below,


"The apparent gravitational pull on the moon reduced by 5% because of the presence of a large asteroid passing beside it, how much energy will a man of 60kg use to jump by 1. 1m?


Removing "if " here has made it meaningless and incoherent.

The question contains two clauses, a subordinate clause and a main clause
The first statement in the question with an "if" is a conditional clause, the subordinate clause, preceding the main clause,

"how much energy will a man of 60kg use to jump by 1.1m". (Main clause)

The conditional clause is very mobile and can be moved to the final position of that original question you asked and it will still make sense like below.


"How much energy will a man of 60kg use to jump by 1.1m if the apparent gravitational pull on the moon is reduced by 5% because of the presence of a large asteroid passing beside it?"
This is very correct.


But see what happened when you stupidly remove the "if" to make it real in your ignorance that you knew what you were doing.


How much energy will a man of 60kg use to jump by 1.1m the apparent gravitational pull on the moon is reduced by 5% because of the presence of a large asteroid passing beside it?


So you see that by removing the "if" you have rendered the original incoherent. And because the conditional clause came first in the original question ,was why there was a, punctuation mark before the main clause. After it was taken to the end the comma was not needed.

I wanted to ignore you concerning this grammatical blunder of yours, but since you keep bringing up as if I was the one who has the problem, I decided to .

English language is your problem and that's why you struggle to understand what everyone has been explaining for you

TenQ:
You throw tantrums like a child

See how much your How much is... argument was easily torn down

Question:
Take this N1000 and get me a loaf of bread of N800: How much change will you return to me?

There's enough evidence here that you're the expert of throwing tantrums everywhere. Perfect example was your reply to Francistown. It's was purely emotional reaction all through. Nothing reasonable

Name calling, insults and false accusations won't help you win an argument. It will only show you're losing the debate and frustrated.

TenQ:
Good.

Only an insane person require a physical proof for a software in a machine.

This is representative of everything that Exists but not Tangible
i[b]
Do you abree with me that It is insanity or gross ignorance to say:
. i] Show me gravity?
What is the weight of gravity?
What is gravity made up from? /i]i[/b]

or

Do you abree with me that It is insanity or gross ignorance to say:
[i]Show me Consciousness (Life) ?
What is the weight of Consciousness (Life)?
What is Consciousness (Life) made up from?

Please don't misconstrue what I said. I emphasized that when talking about softwares alone,it doesn't make sense,but we all know that you're talking of spirit or God indirectly . So it makes sense to ask for prove or some form of physical quantification. The day you understand this is the day you stop believing





You want to be clever by half, but you failed again.
Take all your questions about software,to the right section and see if you won't be called mad by experts there.

Focus on the OP please

Modified. No one who's informed about the bolded will ever ask those questions. But someone who's not informed about spirit has not done anything wrong to ask. He wants to know what's spirit which you have been ruining away from defining directly, but hiding cowardly behind a software to do so

TenQ:
Omotola Jalade Ekeinde
Richard Mofe-Damijo
Will Smith

Are ALL good actors: They are bereaved : so we ask the questions

A Good Actor is expressing Grief: can you measure its weight?

A Good Actor is Crying: can you measure the weight of his Grief?

Can you tell the difference?

Go and learn the difference between a good actor faking grief and someone not acting experiencing it directly. Because you don't know this difference is why you continue to fool yourself.
Why can't you talk about what's real?

An actor faking grief is fully aware of what he or she is doing. That's faking it. So it cannot be real, no matter the tears coming from the eyes. That only shows the person is very good at acting.

TenQ:
Then every question you ask including: What do actors do? is hypothetical.


What is wrong in admitting a misconception rather than stay with Flasehood.


Is LIFE (aka Consciousness) a TANGIBLE reality or NOT?

Please look up the meaning of hypothetical situation and come back and tell me my question was an hypothetical situation too.

You're talking to your self about misconception. You don't know what's hypothetical situation. Your edit of you question where you removed "if" is a confirmation of that.

It's one thing to accuse someone of something and another thing to prove it. I just proved what I accused you of concerning hypothetical situation, but you can't even for once prove all of your false claims about me.

Modified. Someone here shared something about Dunning Kruger effect. Please Google it and read what it means. It will help you a lot

TenQ:
Apart from human experience about the programming of software and how it interacts with the machine, is there any PHYSICAL evidence that softwares exist in a machines memories?

Softwares in a machine are NOT physically detectable by any means: you need another software to detect them (speaking of a circular problem)

How do you know for certain that the Brain has NO software programming of its own?

Talking about softwares alone ,and not spirits, why would any sane person request for "physical evidence"for a software in a machine to know it exist ? Who does that? Your questions are very silly.

You don't want to tell the truth.Continue to play the ostrich while every other part of your body is exposed.

Be courageous and come out to talk about God or spirits. Stop hiding behind a software. Everyone can see you hiding there.

TenQ:
Your problem is that you will rather insist on falsehood than admit the truth that goes against your position.

Speaking of one who doesnt understand English; "how much energy will"

Watch this similar Question:
Take this N1000 and get me a loaf of bread of N800: How much change will you return to me?

This is another hypothetical question by your royal eminence!


Who is the Dundee United?

You are just stupid. What truth do you know that goes against my position. Mention one and let's see how .You're very good at making empty statements to cover for your ignorance.

The statement in quote was to show I was quoting part of your question . You didn't understand it because you don't know what quotation marks are used for in English language.
Dundee United

And BTW what's the point of all these wayward questions ?

Did you skip your medications?