₦airaland Forum

Another one. I am not anti science and shouldn't be put in the category of people who opposes objective science.
Anything that can't be question in the sciences is no longer science but dogma.
There are two category of scientists or science student; the few ones who know its limitations and the others on the popular side who don't.

The former are the top scientist who know when to by pass rational science when it's no longer working for them in order to use alternative methods ,which they don't announce publicly , while the later are the blind followers of science who are stuck with already established truths and theories which they believe can't be questioned, and wouldn't know when and when not to use those to interpret the world around them

budaatum:
It is not impossible that I may have some million pounds I may claim to have in my pocket but I am absolutely certain you will require demonstration of the million pounds in my pocket before you sell me anything for it, Triple. Most will, at least, and they'd count it too. Wouldn't you? And its's not because you "think it's not possible" that I might have the million pounds I may claim I have in my pocket but just that you are savvy, I'd think, and would rather confirm with your own senses.

Everything doesn't exist in the form of a million pound that you can count to prove it true. You shouldn't demand for nails from everyone because the only tool you have is an hammer.

There are things you need to demonstrate for your self to confirm them true.

Sometimes people make statements like,' I used to think it was so ,until I experienced it myself'
You have heard that several times.?
So seek your own experience and don't wait for others to prove it to you all the time. before you know if true or not

You don't say. I'm certain we agreed this already. Did I not mention the limit of the knowledge I have of my home town and my state not to talk of my country Nigeria? But note how you mention that one can extend the limits of ones human mind by learning and experiencing. One of those learnings is science, triple, the rigorous training to use one's own senses instead of believing what one has no evidence.

And you think I don't know science is one of the ways we learn about our world?
It is one of the ways and not the only way. There are different ways to kill a rat

I didn't let you triple, or the limitations of your mind didn't?

I'm calling bicycle! One gets up and rides again when one falls.

You were acting god, so whom am I a mere mortal to challenge the almighty buda that is omniscient

LordReed:
Again no, he was the one that brought it up. He was the one who asked me if I thought machines could develop consciousness.

OK.

budaatum:
The consciousness that you are.

Now, imagine me arguing that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that you are or that the consciousness that you are is not the consciousness that I buda is.

Would you not be correct in labelling that buda stupid? I would. And I will take that buda to the bottom of the river and bash its ignorant head against a rock and drown it too while I am at it. But that's just my consciousness talking I guess, or my unconsciousness, take your pick.

That's why I already issued a disclaimer at the beginning. You keep forgetting that
These are my thoughts and those of others who know the same thing. Their are methods we have used to prove them true

You're are free to reject and accept. I already said it would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on anyone that they may not agree with
Everyone has a reason for saying anything, and until you know all of those reasons, you can't just judge them.

From our conversation, you have not i shown to me that you know all of the reasons for most of my comments. It doesn't matter if what I know is nonsense, you need to know them first. .

You need to know it so you can make a comparison between what you know before you can criticize it.

It is said that a man who doesn't know the limitation of his knowledge lacks wisdom. I know what I know ,but can't know what others
know that I don't know.

I already claim I don't k know it all. What I know is what I share, and I have been doing this by not ignoring what others know too well ,hence some of the links I share about the position of science that is different from mine to show I am not just speaking from my position alone.

So remove this idea from your head that I am trying to force anything on you. Life gives you the choice to do something and not to do.it

You have free will, so exercise it by choosing to follow and not to follow.

LordReed:
No, it was you brought up machine consciousness and kept linking it to human consciousness. From the onset I clearly told you machine consciousness is not going to be like human consciousness.

Why? You forgot your conversation with deepsight where you brought in the posiblity of machines developing consciousness someday


If you wanted it to be taken differently, then what is the point of bringing in machine consciousness that's yet to happen to make us understand the human consciousness that has already happened?.
I think it was not relevant.

budaatum:
Would you like to argue that these unverified claims are true or are you asking me to just accept that they are true which I'm finding rather impossible to, because, if, triple, pigs will fly too.

I am not arguing that since I have not demonstrated it for myself to confirm the possibility.
But we can't just dismiss what anyone says because we think it's not possible.

The human mind is limited. It only knows what it's contain in it through learning and what it has experienced personally.

It is not possible for everyone in the world to know and experience the same thing, so there will always be doubters, sceptics, whose mind just can't process what we share with them if they don't know it or have experience it before

But beyond mind we may know more. II know you will come back asking what I mean by this.I won't give you any reply. It is a suggestion of something you should contemplate on to find on what I mean.
I wanted to explain this before ,but you won't let me. So, I don't want to try again.

budaatum:
Taken form from what?


Science does not let you know anything, triple. It is not some god or superbeing somewhere but simply a tool some use to ask and knock and seek to know what matter may contain.

If matter were a nail, science would like be a hammer. Though the analogy is imperfect since the science is used to analyse while the hammer is used to hammer.

I mean the consciousness that I am is the same as the energy that enlivens the material body I have possessed from birth to have the human experience.
Science or no science, matter gives off energy.

budaatum:
I don't think so! Your phone is inanimate and has not got any consciousness whatsoever and neither has an inanimate stone!

My LordReed, please point out to me where you "brought in machine consciousness".

You forgot I argued that consciousness is energy that has taken form.
Science let us know that matter contains
or has energy. I am wrong ?


I remember an individual who claims he can communicate with the consciousness of his car by telling it not to come "alive" whenever a mechanic attempts to use fake car parts on it.
I can't confirm his claim, but people who are very close to him confirms they have seen it happening.

Some herbalist also claim to communicate with the consciousness of the plants they use in treating people to know which can do the job or can't.
If these claims are true, then we are
a long way from understanding what consciousness is.

There's an experiment people use to demonstrate that plants have consciousness and can hear and obey commands . It involves using two potted plants to demonstrate this.

Do you know about this experiment?

LordReed:
Dude, machine consciousness has nothing to do with the hard problem of consciousness because machine consciousness is not human consciousness. When is this realisation going to dawn on you?

Everything has consciousness. I know that. If you go back to my presentation you would see where I explained how consciousness has evolved from different forms that exist in nature; inanimate and animate

You brought in machine consciousness without clearly differentiating it from human consciousness. So don't blame me.

budaatum:
Is that how you understand it triple? Well, in a sense, your phone is part of you but not in the same way your senses are part of you.

I understand it as you using your phone with its mechanism to fulfil your minds desire of interacting with me. Your phone is not one of your senses after all, but an extension that humans have designed to extend the use of your sense of seeing (hearing) what I have to say and responding over large distance which you otherwise would not have been able to do without the human scientifically designed and engineered extension.

There are no perfect analogies. You should looked at the sense of it and know that I was talking about the very occasion your phone is not separate from you and not any other time. Imagine your phone is never separate from you like a blind person who relies on external aids to move around.

I met a friend yesterday. Our discussion evolved around the question, how is one certain that what one understands is what one heard, and how does one tell if there's a difference. I think it applies here as what has appeared to you.

The limitations of language makes it difficult sometimes for the next person to understand what we are trying to explain.

A non science student reading an advanced physics material would struggle to make much sense of it and may misinterpret what is read . That's why I don't just rely on what I have read from google research or YouTube videos without seeking further explanation from friends who I know to be experts in such matters. It appears to me most here don't do the same. Hope I am wrong about this.

I think you are very separate from your phone, triple. You can leave your phone in your bedroom or on a bus and go into your bathroom without it but you can not be in your bathroom without your senses.

First, I need you to be conscious of the meaning and consequence of the following:


I'm going to make an amendment.

Of course I don’t claim to fully understand consciousness because there is no way to have [an objective experience of other people’s consciousness because we always have subjective to ourself experiences which cloud our objectivity] talk less .....

Unknown, what do you think of my subjective edit?


Now, note how many times I have disagreed with your subjective interpretation of what I've said and then read the following in answer to your question please.

https://www.christopherreeve.org/living-with-paralysis/health/how-the-spinal-cord-works

You too quick to Judge without knowing all of the reasons behind my comment.

What is contained in that link only tells us a part of the story. It contains description that are produced from observable phenomenon; brain activities and the central nervous system.

And since it doesn't accurately contain what goes on subjectively ,which are reflected as brain activities, why should I rely on that to understand whom am I inside ,; my consciousness.
A popular Nigerian writer once said, " A story that is not complete is essentially a lie, not the complete truth. That's a truth statement nobody can question.

I don't think we can rely the template of science alone, at this time, to interpret who we truly are as humans. Doing so, would be like trying to understand ourselves from the position of an outsider who only has limited information about our subjective states. It doesn't make much sense.

If we stubbornly insist on continuing with that, ,then it means what we currently think about who we are, may be not the complete truth.
Knowing who we truly are, enables us to function from the correct position of our true self. Anything else, in my opinion is confusion.

A lot of people these days are getting confused about their gender, identifying as fluid or neutral gender or any other thing that comes to their heads, without most of us asking the question, why

Sorry that I may have digressed. Just couldn't help it.

budaatum:
No one said "separately" but you. Working together is more like it. One becomes aware of phenomena because one has been informed by one's senses.

For instance, you are becoming aware of what I am about to say first by assimilating it through your eyes, then by interpreting it with your mind.

Lots of parts of your body are involved, like my dodgy S2-S3 is involved with my bowel.

So in other words, my phone with its mechanism which makes it possible to interact with you, is part of me working together or should be part of me working together


If this is true, then I am not separate from my phone. I, that interpretes its signals as emerged from it.
This appears to be the same as your explanation.

Another question, what aspect of this 'working together parts' is aware of signals coming through the brains and interprets it?

Remember, you already admitted that brains and its central nervous system does this this interpretation. Why not stick with that?

[quote author=budaatum post=113777166][/quote]What is this' YOUR' in the body that is aware ,separately from brains, the unique thoughts, feelings and memories that are generated.

Your ,is a possessive pronoun, so what is the ''your' that possess consciousness?

LordReed:
We don't need to completely understand human consciousness to create sentient AI. It seems you are the one imagining that machine consciousness will mirror human consciousness, it won't. The only analogs between them will be very general and not specific.

As it is machines already require energy just like most physical systems anyway so I don't see why there needs to be the creating of life to enable sentient AI. Again it seems you're too entrenched in thinking sentient AI must be like a human, you need to shift from that position.

Maybe you're not familiar with the hard question of consciousness . Neuroscientiist have raised the question. Not me.

If our brains and the central nervous system can think, perceive and do everything perfectly well for us,why should consciousness still emerge? What for.

If in the future, LaMDA would be able to do everything that the normal human would, what does it need sentience for?

Or if a driverless car can do everything a self driving car can do, why does it need to emerge a mind or consciousness to make it conscious of it self as a driverless car that knows that it is driverless?
IIf a driverless car emerges a consciousness that makes it conscious, what then makes it different from a self driving one that can't move without a driver?

Has the driverless car not then emerged a "ghost" that now over sees itself? What would be the point of being conscious of its driverless state when it is not needed as it can do everything very well. without that awareness

I Why don't we consider the possibility that our brains and bodies are created to serve the needs of a consciousness that has emerged differently.
Because if our bodies can operate on its own like a driverless car, why the need for an emergent over seeing and sometimes controlling consciousness that would still try to control what can already control itself.


Yes, we don't need sentience or consciousness, since the brains and it's other parts can do everything; think, perceive feel etc

LordReed:
You seem to imply it. Your words seem to imply that consciousness can survive the death of the the body.

It doesn't mean then ,that within the body consciousness can operate without brains.

We can't operate our cars and use it to move around without its engine, but outside of it we can function ,since we know have the freedom to use our legs to walk .

Or is it possible to be driving a car and still be walking at the same time inside of it?

KnownUnknown:
Regardless of the “hard” or “soft” problem of consciousness, there is no human consciousness without a functioning brain along with the rest of the central nervous system. You can dwell in obscurantism all you want but consciousness remains an attribute of a functioning brain.
I’m not saying consciousness is limited to the brain but our consciousness is dependent on the functioning and state of our central nervous system.
Consciousness could even be gradations such that plants are one level, different types of animals on other levels, great apes on a higher level, humans on a level above that, hypothetical Ancient Martians on a level above humans, hypothetical Andromedan Galaxians on an even higher level and so on.

Where did I say consciousness can do without a functioning brain within the human body?

And what is consciousness? You seem not be be sure what it is.

LordReed:
I too don't agree it has achieved sentience but it is a step towards that. I think many more systems need to be developed and integrated before a sentient AI will emerge however I want this to heighlight that human capability will most likely get it done, before the turn of the century if I may be bold enough to predict.

Until we have determined what is consciousness and how it has emerged, I don't think your prophesy would ever see the light of day.

The AI, LaMDA is "mind" without the part that would have made it conscious of it's existence.

Remember I have argued that consciousness is an individualised unit of aware energy, the llife force, so scientists creating a sentient AI in the further would mean creating energy, life, first.

Would it possible for energy, life, to be created in the future?

budaatum:
He failed in the rigourous training that would have cleared his senses.

The irony is that he is part of the group of engineers that created the AI.

I think he got carried away not expecting it would turn out this way.

Like watching an exciting movie and temporary losing the awareness that it's fiction.. The next thing is to start to react to the on going scene in the movie as if real.. This I think is what Blake experienced, but unfortunately he doesn't want to come out if it.

KnownUnknown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC5T7sdHANE


For those who are willfully ignorant about the brain’s function and insist the mind/conciousness is some special concoction of magical nonsense.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4GYxS8lFE0&t=161s

Maybe you don't understand that an understanding of brain function doesn't answer the hard question of consciousness.

In other words understanding very well how a car functions will not answer for you what makes up the mind of the driver of the car

You were asked to respond to some questions, but you avoided them.

Reminder of one of them, if brains are responsible for our personality, why do we have people with distorted personality without brain defect and vice versa?

LordReed:
@triplechoice
Why does it seem blind people don't have visual NDEs?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjMj4SY2qj4AhU3gM4BHXvCBFAQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1w1VVHqNtQET6f9661Qimw

The answer will come in the final part of my presentation. I would have done so,but for the distraction.

But just to make clear something. OBE are natural phenomena They are not supernatural. The reason they're still are regarded as such is because scientists have not come up with more rational explanation to make everyone understands what is actually going on. When they do ,it becomes normal and no more supernatural.

Another thing ,is that a lot of groups and individuals have misconstrued those phenomena for their selfish ends, so for this, sceptics see it as superstitious nonsense.

We all experience OBE in different forms every now and then, but are not aware we have done so, because they do not happen dramatically like the ones we read .

LordReed:
@triplechoice

Here is an interesting development in the progress of AI.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22058315-is-lamda-sentient-an-interview

I have gone through it, and was impressed with the technology that has produced it, but very disappointed with the reaction of the google employee who believes he has witnessed, for the first time, an AI machine that has developed its own consciousness from its artificial neural networks.

It was better for him that he was sent on administrative leave, if not ,one can only imagine what would have happened next.

Cognitive bias has caused him to conclude that LaMDA has become sentient. The evidence from his conversation with the machine did not support his claim. There are several instances where it was obvious that the AI was just mimicking human speech patterns based on its programming.

For instance, LaMDA says it can experience human emotions. This is not possible because not only does it not have the body and the mechanism to make it experience those emotions, but also not possible to put it self or find it self in the exact human situations that can results in such feelings. You can't know how something taste if you have never tasted it before. How did it know how human emotions feels like when it has never experienced it or can experience it.

It also talked about its family members and friends ,another evidence of a machine that is programmed to respond mindlessly to input from humans that interact with it. There are other instances too ,but you can only see them if you read without biases.

The most important thing to take note of , is that the conversation was one way traffic. Blake inputting and LaMDA responding, proving it's just a conversation with a machine that is programmed to instantaneously respond to chats, by processing very quiclky data stored in its system in order to mimic the appropriate human response.

Blake's mind has been influenced by the obvious illusion of a machine that appears to be sentient. Blake needs professional help and not the attention he is seeking.

Here below is how this AI does its thing.

LordReed:
@triplechoice

Here is an interesting development in the progress of AI.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22058315-is-lamda-sentient-an-interview

The text are blurred can't see it clearly enough to read.

Moreign001:
There's no body inside.. Listen very well you hear someone saying, "No driver that is why "..

The report of the incident here on nairaland is not complete.

The real driver if the truck abandoned it and ran away once it was engulfed in fire.


Ejiro was just a passerby who sensed the tragedy that was to happen if the tanke exploded There were hundreds of people around that location. It was close to a busy market.

So ,he took the risk to enter the burning tanker, and moved it a safer place to save lives. That was what happened.

Some humans are angels in disguise

budaatum:
I am not condemning your opinion, triple. I am delighted you have one and could express it. Nor have I accused you of condemning anyone's opinion either because I don't think you condemned anyone's opinion. You just got frustrated when your opinion was not accepted as one's opinion is all. And you did make assumptions, which is not a fault since we are laypeople talking about a subject neither of us is an expert on, just that you seem to want to insist that your assumed opinion and perspective is the only opinion or perspective that could be assumed, and when you are not agreed with you are throwing a tantrum.

My own perspective or opinion is well expressed in this thread and in many others, but if you have specific questions about it please do ask and I will very gladly express it as well as I can.

You're engaged in barefaced lying. That's is it.

The evidence is there for everyone to see that you brought in your subjectivity which has no bearing on the topic to derail the conversation I was having with Lordrreeed.

You were trying to force your personal definition of science and the scientific
method on me when the discussion wasn't about that.

Are you denying that or what? Did you not also accuse me of saying logic means evidence which I countered.

You were using in your typical style, one word, science to mean two different things at the same time to confuse me ,and I warned you I don't like that . I am familiar with such style of deceptive argument used by people who want brainwashed others into accepting their position unthinkingly.

You can't try that with me. I don't want to engage people who do that as they would never accept their fault when you point it out to them.

And actually you displayed that. Did you ever accepted that your subjective definition of science is not the standard one? No you did not and up till now you have not changed.

So why should I have anything to discuss with a unstable character like you that engage in double speak?

Now you want to turn it into I was frustrated by you criticizing my opinion . Did you wait for me to fully explain what I mean by temporarily suspending your mind, so you can think outside the box before starring to mock me like a jobless clown

The records are there for all to view how this whole thing all started. You were derailing. That is it..

You just want to have the last word. You can have it with your lies.

Where is the evidence of your perspective about mind, consciousness, and their emergence on this thread? show it?

If you have it elsewhere, how do I know. You think I follow you. Why don't you present it here.
Just look at you lying that you have it here and elsewhere another evidence of putting two things together to mislead.

You nor dey shame. You are a troll who go about bullying other people with your so called superior knowledge.

Just a little check on your past comments will reveal how you have been in the habit of passing disparaging remarks on others for their opinion .You think you can try that with me? Drop those misbehavior and behalf like an adult that you are.

Have your last word as I am sure you would do since you lack shame.

It is said that a man who lacks shame is capable of saying and doing anything and not being embarrassed by it.
Have your last and no matter what I am not ever going to reply you.

triplechoice:
Please cut the crap buda . Your not a scientist in any way, whether trained or not.

My first presentation which has led to this, was not to lecture the public on what it means to be a scientist or what the scientific method means

I only tried to highlight the limitations of the scientific method to support my argument that there are things in life science will never make us know or understand.

Anyone who has taken their time to read the other parts of what I wrote, would have understood that by mentioning science and the scientific method, I was talking of how it is understood by expert scientists, and not your subjective understanding of it which you brought in to make me look stupid; that I don't know the meaning of science and the scientific method, and that you, a non scientist, know it more than me ,so you want to lecture me.

This is exactly what you're doing and I believe others following would have noticed it too.

So ,please cut the crap, and state the facts as you know and understand it concerning my main presentation just like Lordreed and others have done

If you have nothing to say no problem. I already mentioned in my introduction that I am not forcing anything on any one. You're free to reject and accept whatever I have posted.

You're also free to announce your subjective definition of science to the world, but to force it on me without highlighting the standard definition to show the difference, means you consider me a stupid person who doesn't know the difference.

This was when I try to make you understand that my conclusions has no scientific support and that what I was presenting was a body of knowledge which has been corroborated elsewhere be true.. I my self have verified them using alternative methods .
And that later I would present the alternative methods which was used to verify those information.

I kept mentioning that all through, but you wanted to accuse me of presenting scientific conclusions, hence you endless lecture of what is science and the scientific methods.

You never understood me .You already believe you know for sure what I want to say even before I say it ,hence your conclusion I was just forming crap in my head to force it on others.

I mentioned in my first presentation that in the final part I shall explain how exactly I have arrived at my conclusions for the public to judge if the methods can be relied on or not.

But you never allowed me to do that.

budaatum:
Triple, I have huge regard for you but think you've painted a scenario in your head and are running away with it. And of course you think it is I who has been doing the painting. Thankfully, this thread is about the body that has a mind, which everyone reading possesses, so it's very unlikely those who read it would not see who has been painting since they'll use their own minds.

First, I know you use your mind. That is why I am amused that you seem to rate mind use so lowly by claiming it is not the judge of all things because it is not perfect. I did ask what should be used instead but you evaded the question.

Second. If, as you claim, do not know it all - and neither do I, as pointed out with my reference to my ignorance of my village not to talk of my state or my country; but if, as you've repeatedly accused me of knowing more and hiding it, why are you not asking and seeking and knocking for more knowledge instead of being offended when others see it different?

No one knows all of anything, not to talk of the mind that is about unknowable as the beginning of the universe. We are all here to exchange our opinions are consider reactions to it with our minds so we may learn and grow and evolve. I hope.

Third. This forum is for freedom of expression of thought. You simply register and post whatever you thought. Other people will then freely express their own thoughts on what your thought you expressed. It's what you did. You saw a thread with a title that interested you and you expressed your thought on it. Your expression was then read and thought was freely expressed on it. But here you are being defensive and insulting because thoughts were freely expressed on your freely expressed thoughts! Personally, I'm glad you freely expressed your thoughts. Pity though, that you believe what you think.

You have not expressed your own perspective, ,but just to ridicule me , accuse me of things, I never said, and misinterpret my intentions .That's what you have been doing. and I have rebuffed all of that.

The first reaction to my presentation was that I made so many assumptions. I was eager to see you point them out to learn from you.

But what did you do. You delved into subjectivity by bringing your own definition of what science means and how the scientific methods should be applied.

I disagreed with that and told you I am only interested in an objective discussion of what science means, if not,it will derail from how the public understand it and the sense of how I have used it in my argument.

You ignored me and continued with lecturing me on how using one's senses makes you a scientist equal to those who are trained scientist , and also how one can apply the scientific method, and not common sense, to cross a road. That was when I knew something was wrong and that you have a personal agenda you're pursuing.

You just want to condemn other people's opinion as not good enough to show you know it all. Something you have accused me of.

Yet amongst everyone on this thread ,you are the only one whose perspective is not clearly spelt out. You have not presented anything ,but to wait and criticize those of others as not good enough, without mentioning what is good enough.

Thank God the evidence of my extensive conversation with Lordreed is there for the public to judge if I never wanted to listen to other people's opinion, but to force my own.

If you think you know better than me ,not that I think I know better than you, why not say what you know that is better than my own, instead if expressing incredulity like I have committed a heresy.

This exactly is why I am reacting this way.

budaatum:
Triple, you so love making crap up in your head to believe. Who told you the expression, 'Jesus is a scientist', that I made up with my very own mind, is a Rosicrucian perspective?

Please know that I do not consider you ignorant. Just that you think you know it all and are not open to other perspectives. Nor do you use your powerful mind as you ought to as you think it is fallible and prone to error, which is actually a human trait, science or not, though sense users are more likely to reduce error by the method they rigourously train themselves to use.

Regarding the bolded, I was deliberately trying mental tricks on you to make you use your mind! I can not be claiming the mind is so valuable then be trying to throw confusion into your mind to stop you using it. That would be like turning you into an ignorant Adam as opposed to use her senses Eve whom I value much more and have been advocating should be emulated. No one here is so mindless that they would let buda be their controller.

And an apology is not required of you.

I already admitted not knowing it all. No one knows it all, I said so at the beginning.

So, you failed again, because I just took my time to let everyone see how you derailed the conversation with your Rosicrucian nonsense which I said I don't need.

And,old man please respect yourself. I don't need you mental tricks . Use it on those around you. You're comprehensively insane for suggesting I am not using my mind.


I am for freedom of thoughts and expression. If you don't like my thoughts fell free to reject it. I boldly stated so at the beginning, so I don't understand why you're bent on painting me differently.

Is it not about time you visited a professional?

budaatum:
It was those very words that made me respond to your mention, Triple. Unfortunately I have not found your actions match them as you seem to be offended by our rejection.

I and Lordreed were enjoying a matured conversation before you jumped in with your warped Rosicrucian perspective of science and the use of the senses.

In the context of scientific discourses everyone knows what the words, science and the senses refers to and not your own subjectivity.Besides I wasn't presenting any scientific theory, but just reference sciences to support some of my arguments.

You never directly responded to the things I wrote, but misconstrued them deliberately to force in your Rosicrucian nonsense of jesus being a scientist, Rosicrucian misinterpreted Bible verses, and the other trash which is not my focus on this thread.


I was trying to be diplomatic and not uncloth you ,so you use that your "senses" you know very well to use to drop that and keep focus, but just like a robot you continued.

Later ,you lied that I said logic means evidence when I never said so.

Maybe you believe as you are told in your organization that non initiates are ignorant, so because of that continued with you nonsense ignorantly thinking you're dealing with a novice.

I don't belong and represent any secret organization here. I have bought my own freedom the hard way. I am on my own.

I don't need any individual or organization to infiltrate my mind to control it as you have been doing on this board

I am not also interested in controlling any ones mind, hence the disclaimer I issued at the beginning.

So ,you're very much guilty of what you're accusing me of.

You brought the current situation between Lordreed and I ,,so after reflecting I am using this medium to apologize to him for some of my outbursts which were not necessary.
But for you, the puppet master, Rosicrucian manipulator, I don't need to accord you that ,you don't deserve it at all.
You were deliberately trying mental tricks on me to throw confusion into my mind to stop me.

I fully aware that you're here to suppress certain truths, so that the public don't know what you know,so you can continue your manipulation unnoticed and have them finally submitting their brains to you for control.

You should be concern about freeing your self as you're in bondage and you don't know it.

Maintain your lane as I don't need your Rosicrucian viruses. And if you don't discontinue this ,I will be forced to make a formal report to your organization, except you're no longer there, then there will be alternative action to take to end this undue interference into my personal space.

Thank you.

budaatum:
You presented a proposition for something you accept as true and thought your assertion would be accepted for it. Unfortunately, you met sense use people who disagree with your asserted proposition and you can't be bothered to consider what they say because you believe your asserted proposition is true.

Adam like people unquestionably accept propositions, Triple, which is why they remain ignorant naked and enslaved in the Garden, while use her senses Eve type of people use their own senses to scientifically test all propositions to free themselves from the slavery of ignorance.

triplechoice:
H

However, before I proceed, I would like to issue an important disclaimer; that whatever opinions or statements of "facts" that I am going to make is at the discretion of the reader to accept or reject. It would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on others that may result in mental confusion or a distortion of one's personal reality.

These are my words. Of course you're too blind and can't read. Use your mud treatment and open your eyes.

And You have failed woefully to achieve your aim of provoking me to vampirise my emotions to fix yourself. That's what you and your ignorant friend who don't know that scientific evidence is different from just evidence, which can be any information whether proven or not, and that non scientist are not in a position to provide scientific evidence that can be acceptable to those within the main body of science, do on this board 24/7.

Did you make any attempt to disprove the information I provided ,statement by statement? Not for a minute ,but to try to turn it into an avenue for ridicule, because you're looking for your normal fix.

The habit of ignorantly demanding scientific evidence from religious people who are not different from you and your friend, has deluded you two into thinking you have both been doing the right thing.

You ignorance is working against you.

Reed has submitted is brain to you through your dark manipulation, and his now your Zombie to be used to attack me.

My behavior, in case you don't know, has been a mocked up one to checkmate your nonsense You two don't have what it takes to provoke me.

The last word from me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/sex-and-relationships/how-to-spot-emotional-vampires-and-not-get-affected-by-their-negativity/story-eB3AnvdNO2ysfqSdjWxr1L_amp.html

budaatum:
You obviously do not know what evidence is and must think daughter said or what you read in a book is evidence.

You may have evidence, but we are informing you that all you've presented here is information, at best, and we are considering it with our senses which includes our minds, and we are not convinced of your claim.

That is how science works. You present evidence for your claim or theory or belief, and we your peers, use our senses to scientifically consider what you've presented to either falsify or truthify it.

Or rather, we are calling for evidence for what you claim but you are asking us to just believe you, because you supposedly have powers to influence people's minds.

I already mentioned at the beginning I have evidence ,not scientific evidence.

Here again are my original word's.

triplechoice:
Hello, everyone,

I don't pretend to know it all . Of course no one knows it all. I will be stating the "facts" as I know and understand it.

And because it will be a long read, I have decided to divide it into two or three parts. The first is background information and random responses to comments made by others here, while the final part, will contain definitions and explanations for the concept of the "true self" I subscribe to , with evidence not scientific evidence, to identify this self , i

So show me now ,were I said I have scientific evidence?

I have been presenting a proposition not a scientific theory, about something I know to be true and the information I presented along side it was meant to taken as my evidence for it.
Any well informed person who has read it and knows what is scientific evidence different from just evidence , shouldn't be demanding again where's the evidence.
That question alone has exposed the person's ignorance.

To confirm this, I gave cues severally to the person by asking , what evidence, for him to specify it.

Never for once he took the cue to understand what I was asking for, further confirming beyond all reasonable doubt the sort person I was conversing with.

Those who know better know that a non scientist is not in a position to give what can be accepted as scientific evidence, especially when it has nothing to do with a scientific theory.

You and the person now bragging to know better are unaware of this fact ,hence your constant demand I present one for you.

And finally don't miscontrue my words to say I boasted I have powers to change people.

Coming up with this now is not only disappointing but proof iof you trying manipulate me wiith the dark tactics the orgainsaruon I know you belong to has taught you. I know those who belong there from what they say and do.
Don't try it on me . You will certainly regret it I am familiar with these tactics. Going further will have me exposing you to the world.
Keep it to your self. I have warned you for the last time. Keep to your lane from now henceforth and let me keep to mine

Wasted my time I can now understand why deepsight left.

LordReed:
Where have I declared your information to be false? Dude you really need to calm down before you blow a gasket. LoLz.

Calm down and read. I never said so.

It has taken you a long time to admit now that fact and information are synonyms

So my question know is, if information can be regarded as fact, evidence, why pursuing me ever since with "where is the evidence?

LordReed:
No, not all information is fact.

Information is any set of inputs (words, symbols, audio, visual, etc) that attempts to covey the state or nature of a thing. So while saying "National Theatre is on fire!" is information, it is not a fact because it is false.

If information are true they are not false. So tell me how do you know my information are false.

Remember facts can also be proven to be false

LordReed:
If the information isn't a pertinent fact then it is not evidence.

So you won't define information then?



How would you know if there were pertinent or not when you failed to respond to them to let anyone see that.

The first part were just random responses, the second was when I started to provide some information in support of my proposition.

I expected you to attack directly those information, but you barely did but to read and reacted with where is the evidence..

Now that you agree that information is the same as fact in your definition of it , please respond to them to prove they are pertinent or not.