₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho4:
See the werey that claimed to know me after the same buda told him nothing useful about me


Now complaining of being misconsidered


I know your fellow bastards will celebrate you with your disgusting hypocrisy

You were asked to provide information about yourself to confirm your claims since you were begging. But you refused.

I am not begging anyone for anything here, so don't compare yourself with me.

People should just throw money at you because you're entitled to it.

Go and work and feed yourself

budaatum:
He obviously doesn't care that we would use our senses to engage with what he presents and wants us to believe him like he believes those who told him what he's expressing.

Now, if he understood that we are subjects with our own subjective minds perhaps he'd refrain from presenting his own subjective understandings and expressions as if they were objective as in not subjective to himself.

I hope you learn from the person you have quoted. He has is own perspective, on the issued been discussed and he just shared it with me.

You don't have anything to present, hence you think I want you to just believe me

Use your head so you don't fall for anything

KnownUnknown:
So your schtick is based on brain states to wit dreams and hallucinations that are wholly dependent on cultural norms or religious beliefs of the person have the “OBE”. Even though your position is dependent on the brain, you then introduce all kinds of unverifiable claims to suggest otherwise while appealing to some vague “scientists” and simultaneously claiming “I don’t care how scientists approach it for now”. Hackneyed.

Whatever you like to say. I never said dreams dont need brains.

How do you remember your dreams if your brains are not involved.

I would like to learn from you your own perspective on dreams and how you have been working with the dreams you have every night

What are dreams?

Why do we dream?

Why do some people have dreams of precognition.

Do dreams have any relevance in our lives?

Is it possible to interpret one's dream to understand them?

budaatum:
Have you heard of confirmation bias? Its like glasses one wears that distorts what one is looking at and might have influenced you "before reading". I mean, see how many times you've misinterpreted what I've written.

There are far too many faults in your perspective, triple, that they jump out at one without one looking, but of course you would not accept that perhaps because your own "the knowledge from my own personally experience" is the only knowledge and experience that can possibly be had and anyone else's "knowledge from my own personally experience" is not worth your time or consideration especially if it contradicts your own "knowledge from my own personally experience".

Another judgmental template, confirmation bias, which has stopped you from thinking.

Not every personal experience can teach you something, some can misled you, but some can, especially when you how ti validate your experiences. It is those who don't know that are victims of confirmation bias.

I thought you were smart, but you continue to disappoint me and I think others following


You don't know the sort of experiences I have had in life and the methods I have used to confirm what to accept and reject.

I have had experiences which I have discarded since I know how to confirm what is true or not.

If you don't how to determine if the experiences you have had can be relied on or abandoned, then confirmation bias may misled you into accepting the wrong thing.

So ,buda stop using judgemental templates you don't fully understand as you will exposed your ignorance.
Please go and educate yourself. You ignorance is stinking

It is better to ignore you as you're trying to come through the back door to start your nonsense again.
Your mind is working in the groove of mindless criticism. You can't stop yourself

KnownUnknown:
You managed to say absolutely nothing.

I also love how people like you always cite “scientists” while also eschewing science. This is because most of your opinions are handed down by some “authority” or the other so you think everyone depends on authority to arrive at knowledge.

I did that to prove it also something scientists are aware of ,and not spiritual as you once concluded concerning OBE. I don't really care how scientist approach it for now


I don't follow the methods shared in that article as I don't find them effective enough compared to what I know. But if they were better than what I use ,I would follow those ones and abandon mine

If I had proceeded just like that I suspect you would accuse me like buda of coning up with crap in my head.
And wait, does it really matter what any authority says if one can prove it works?

Why don't you learn you how to work with your dreams to confirm if true, instead of thinking it is just what is believed

And concerning eschewing science, you have concluded wrongly. I don't avoid science but insist it has limitations which most blind followers of the sciences are not aware.

For those ones, they are not different from religious fanatics who believe everything as true, without questioning .

budaatum:
Don't you think this applies to your very self?

Where have you shown any interest in anyone's views or sought to understand anyone's perspective? Is it not true that you are hell bent on promoting your own perspective which you've admitted is not really your own perspective and which you never checked before adopting?

You will grow, Triple.

You're have been finding faults, judging and condescending, without showing any genuine interest in anything I have discussed.

If you are genuinely interested and not just to condemn, you should by now by telling everyone contrary facts that nullifies my position.

For instance, if someday describe life in Lagos, and you know it is not completely true, what you do then, is to tell the person the actual "story " of life in Lagos, since you know it better than the person.
But when you fail to do that, what do you expect people to think of you?

It means you don't know about much about life in Lagos but you are just chronic sceptic, who doubts everything to extent of doubting himself if he is awake or asleep

Please concentrate on the religious people you like to troll as blind believers on this board.

You refute yourself each time when you say I just believe things without confirming them to be true.

You are also believing ,without evidence or much knowledge about me that I believe without ,confirming anything. That's how you refute yourself.

You don't much about me; what I have done, the experience I have had and anything other thing.about me.
It's about time you abandoned this your god complex as it is not helping you at all.

budaatum:
I can see now why you are discouraged, triple. You are pastoring to us expecting we'd believe you but your pastoring is hitting against the use of our minds.

These are not your own knowledge gathered with your own senses, but you'd like us to follow your lead anyway! Do we sound like mindless mumus to you or something, and don't you think you should rigorously check your knowledge before presenting it to us?

You got work to do dude, with your senses.

Not my knowledge alone I actually wanted to say. I already had the knowledge from my own personally experience ,before reading about some of them years later elsewhere to see that I was not just deluding myself.

Other people also arrived at the same thing almost the same way I did.
And even now, what I know long ago to be true is what scientists are starting to investigate since the evidences is becoming overwhelming for them not to ignore. Some people are born with certain skills and abilities which they never learnt from anyone. If you don't know this, then you're ignorant

So , buda, stop looking for faults

Being genuinely interested in another person's points of view and seeking to fully understand their perspective lessens the level of judgement and creates greater relationship harmony. Copied.

budaatum:
No I never! Or you at least never responded when I asked you what you'd say if your daughter dreamt she was a man, but I will question you now?



Do you believe the authors daughter and the animals were in a spaceship that she realised was a washing machine, triple?

Oh my God
Dreams sceneries and imageries are not to taken for real. They represent something.

That you should decode yourself

And if not that your attention is fully focused on judging ,you can't fail to miss that the dream serve to inspire the daughter to write a story from it

None accepted that the dream was a real event except you

budaatum:
No I never! Or you at least never responded when I asked you what you'd say if your daughter dreamt she was a man, but I will question you now?



Do you believe the authors daughter and the animals were in a spaceship that she realised was a washing machine, triple?

I said it's from a scientific perspective, not my conclusion.

You can study your dreams yourself to confirm.

Or don't you dream?

budaatum:
Of course it is my choice not to follow triple who is just following what he was told and believes without bothering to check it's veracity.

I am Eve, triple, not Adam!

Another judgemental rant from you that believes I am just following what I read or was told.
What do you know about me? Omniscient buda?

If you don't want to eat the forbidden fruit to open your eyes, can't force you. You know it all

budaatum:
What are the "methods we have used to prove them true", triple.

I'd like to see how you went about it please so I can check if they are true with my own senses.

You already started questioning me on one of them. Like you forget.

Here is from a scientific perspective

https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00140

budaatum:
Demonstrate for myself as opposed to just accepting what triple says, you mean? Yes, I have heard it several times and I expect to hear it from you someday.

Have you not just described what buda and others have been doing all along with you who "used to think" how you think now but would think better when you use your senses to consider the responses you are getting?

But no. Triple expects us to follow the leads of triple as if we were all born tomorrow and have no experiences or knowledge or leads we have followed to where we are today.

What you choose to follow or not follow is your choice.

KnownUnknown:
Please, present a couple of methods.

I already shared one. It is there in my presentation if you go back to it.

The reception to that has discouraged me not to share anything further.. There are not my own knowledge. I have no exclusive right to them.

Just follow the lead I have given to research the others for yourself

Nothing about them is magical

budaatum:
No one is saying an analogy should be perfect! Fact remains that a phone is not a part of one as one's senses are. You can't go into your bathroom without your senses.

The phone represent something. The phone represent my body and the mechanism that keeps its system running.
While me, represent the being that has not emerged from the phone but is "inside" of it and using it.
I have used it to show the sort of relationship the exist between myself and the body I occupy.
Without the phone and its mechanism I can't function inside of it. There won't be any point to occupy it in the first.
When there is a call coming in , the phone detects the signal and alerts mechanically that I have a call. The phone , body, doesn't know the meaning of a call it is just reacting to its programming.
I , the owner the phone, (body )is the only entity that is conscious of what is going on.
If the phone becomes dead, I move out of it to occupy another body.

This is what I am trying to get across and not just a normal phone user and his device. Of course, I don't expect you to accept all of these explanation for obvious reason.

I wish you would not forget this. The limitations are not your's alone, both in expressing and in understanding. We must however do the best we can to express and understand.

I am usually conscious of this.

No one is asking you to rely on anything about your consciousness, triple. It is your consciousness, it is subjective to you alone. It is not objectively observable to us, and only ignorantly can we be telling you anything about your consciousness.

We are talking about consciousness in general, triple, and not the consciousness of triple, and there's no harm considering the opinion of those who may have spent a lot more time on consciousness than us such that they may seem like science students compared to us non-science students, as far as this topic goes.

Whatever we think of ourselves is what we express, but we must be sure that what we think of ourselves is the correct thing ,if not ,we would act on the wrong one
How can we know the correct thing to think of who we are? That's the question

I'm glad you say so. Thankfully, no scientist is telling me to rely on any template of what it is to be human, and if they were I'd likely not listen since I prefer to use my own senses to decide my own humaness.


.

Sorry triple, but I am buda, and not a "lot of people these days are getting confused", and if I stubbornly insist on "relying on the template of science alone", which thankfully I'm far too able to not do, then I am a fool and I do not think I would live very long for it is far better for me to use my own senses to do my own science than to rely on the science done by another with their own senses.

An exaggeration by me, but that doesn't mean some persons are not confused about who they are

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.