₦airaland Forum

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.

LordReed:
I dunno how many you want me to write what evidence is. Are you reading the responses at all?




It's a sign of frustration when all you are doing is being defensive. I haven't done any of the things you accuse me of so you clearly must have something going on with you.

I ask you again, are information not facts?

Please answer this or define the word, information

LordReed:
Dude can't even tell a joke from serious stuff. Why are you getting worked up man?

It's difficult to understand Buda. I know that from experience. here on this board.

Let tell you this and it would surprise you.

Buda is in the know of some of the things I am discussing here, but he is pretending not to .know.

But my reaction is because I suspect he is deliberately misconstruing my statements. I it is slowing things down for me to get out the rest of what I have already prepared, since I have to expend energy to explain things I shouldn't be wasting my time on

[quote author=LordReed post=113606344][/quote]Evidence is the sort of information or facts........
Don't remove the word, information, it is still evidence

LordReed:
LoLz! Are you assuming that the Wright brothers were the first to try heavier than air flight? People had been grappling with the problem centuries before the Wright brothers were born.

Never said so ,but nobody expected them to succeed with it ,as scientists already made the public believe that such ventures are only pursued by deluded folks.

Please read the full article and have some laugh reading reactions of some journalist and some scientists.

LordReed:
Dude you are expressing frustration. Several times I wrote that I am waiting for your evidence but some how you just gloss over it and now you are showing signs of frustration and I dunno why.

I ask you again what evidence. You can't read the information I have provided and still go on to ask for evidence.

Are information not evidence? Dispute those one's and let's move ahead

I can't give you scientific evidence. I am not in a position to do so.

Anyone asking for scientific evidence for a proposition is not doing the right thing.

I am not frustrated in anyway. I am not interested in his subjectivity.

What should I do with the statement that Jesus is a scientists?

I have said I am not interested in his poetry. He should keep it himself and not force it on me. I don't want learn metaphor and similes from him.

LordReed:
LoLz. You obviously either don't properly read stuff or you don't understand it. What I quoted has this clearly written:

"Is the Airship Possible?" with the remark, "That depends, first of all, on whether we are to make the requisite scientific discoveries." He ends with the remark "the construction of an aerial vehicle ... which could carry even a single man from place-to-place at pleasure requires the discovery of some new metal or some new force."

From someone who was not aware of the work of the Wright brothers it was a reasonable position.

If he was not aware,why the scientific explanation then .
And when he became fully aware , what support did he give, nothing. They never wanted to have anything to do with him.

Please read the link I sent. There's further details of what actually transpired.

You can't conclude with one part of the story.

The main reason I brought the story is not being addressed.

budaatum:
You mean they have not rigourously trained their senses to distinguish between the two? I guess I need not mention science and it's methods then, should I.

Triple, forgive me. I'll await you telling my Lord what this method of yours is.

Poof that you and Reed never read very well my first presentation. I had mentioned that in the final part I will provide demonstrations and proofs for proper understanding .
But since you think you know those already, then , I give you my full permission to explain to the public how to distinguish between the two.
I said before I don't know it all.
Thank you.

LordReed:
A quick response before a fuller one:

On the impossibility of a flying machine
Newcomb is famously quoted as having believed it impossible to build a "flying machine". He begins an article titled "Is the Airship Possible?" with the remark, "That depends, first of all, on whether we are to make the requisite scientific discoveries." He ends with the remark "the construction of an aerial vehicle ... which could carry even a single man from place-to-place at pleasure requires the discovery of some new metal or some new force."[18]

In the October 22, 1903, issue of The Independent, Newcomb made the well-known remark that "May not our mechanicians ... be ultimately forced to admit that aerial flight is one of the great class of problems with which man can never cope, and give up all attempts to grapple with it?",[19][20] He suggested that even if a man flew, he could not stop. "Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. Once he stops, he falls as a dead mass." Newcomb had no concept of an airfoil. His "aeroplane" was an inclined "thin flat board". He therefore concluded that it could never carry the weight of a man.

Newcomb was particularly critical of the work of Samuel Pierpont Langley, who claimed that he could build a flying machine powered by a steam engine, but whose initial efforts at flight were public failures.[21] In 1903, however, Newcomb was also saying,

"Quite likely the 20th century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different."[22]

Newcomb was not aware of the Wright Brothers' efforts, whose work was done in relative obscurity (Santos-Dumont flew his 14-bis in Paris only in 1906) and apparently unaware of the internal combustion engine's better power-to-weight ratio. When Newcomb heard about the Wrights' flight in 1908, he was quick to accept it.[23]

Newcomb favored the development of rotating wing (helicopters) and airships that would float in the air (blimps). Within a few decades, Zeppelins regularly transported passengers between Europe and the United States, and the Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the Earth.[24]

This story of yours has been proven to be a lie. The re several articles on this, but of course you won't see those one's.

Even if it were true, what about the scientific explanation he gave to debunked the idea that metal Can't fly.

What about the reaction of other scientists

You have ignored the main reason I brought out that story in the first place.

I can now conclude that while I take my time to read everything you sent so as to respond appropriately, you have not obliged me this in return.

It has shown in most of your replies as they do not have any bearing to what I have argued.

I had announced that I have just evidence ,not scientific evidencr, which I have tried to provide in form of information as support.

You have consistently ignored them to still ask for evidence. Haba

LordReed:
You are one who has been harping on scientific evidence. I have not for once told you to give me scientific evidence.

You're in denial. You never asked for scientific evidence, but when asked to indicate the evidence you're seeking.for ,you did nothing.
I already mentioned what I have has evidence; information .,logical truths Fault those one's if you think they are not good enough.

You can't pretend now because we know ourselves here for you to think I don't know the sort if evidence you wanted me to provide.



I don't have scientific evidence. I don't need scientific evidence all the time to know certain things. That would be misapplication of science..

Common sense and simple logic is what it takes most times to arrive at certain conclusion.

LordReed:
You hear triplechoice, I read it in a book or them say is not evidence. LoLz.

Which book ? You have been the one replying on what neuroscience says about who you are and not me. Anything I referenced is to let you see that I not speaking from my position alone.
I know what science says about the human being ,but I have not completely accepted all of that because at this time there's no strong scientific backing for such conclusions.

Neuroscientist admit to this, but you seem to know more than the people whose science you subscribe to, without carrying out any research of your own.

LordReed:
You are one who has been harping on scientific evidence. I have not for once told you to give me scientific evidence.

Me or you. I mentioned in my first presentation that I have evidence, not scientific evidence. Please go back and read it. It is clearly stated.
You are the one who says that you have scientific evidence backing the theory that mind has emerged from matter which you have failed to provide.

Severally I have asked you to indicate what sort of evidence you want from me,but you have ignored

budaatum:
And neither is I read it in a book or them say, please inform him.

I never said logic is evidence. I said there are logical truths which can be taken as evidence, not scientific evidence.

You and Lordreed seem not to know the difference between scientific evidence and just evidence. They are not the same.

Evidence can be a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, while scientific evidence is evidence that serves to support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.


Have I been proposing a scientific theory? No

What I have been doing is to provide a body of information which I am exposed to, to support what I have come to accept as truth.

I have not been proposing a scientific theory or hypothesis since I am not a scientist.

But your subjective understanding of science seems to blind you to this fact

Please educate yourself very well before trying to educate others.

@Lordreed,
I will reply all of responses later, but in the main time here below is Link to the Wright brothers story
https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/They_Wouldnt_Believe/They_Wouldnt_Believe_the_Wrights_Had_Flown.htm

budaatum:
What you really mean is sometimes the mind fails us, which you then assume makes it necessary for you to abandon your mind temporarily and apply creativity. And by creativity you mean make crap up and believe it.

You know my thoughts on such non-mind use Triple. Such people end up believing like ignorant Adam that acquiring knowledge is what kills so they'd rather remain enslaved.

There are certain cognitive abilities we all possess, but which most of us are simply unaware of or don't know how they operate.

These abilities are beyond mind, that is, they are not due to brain functioning.

Your brain, (which helps ro modulate your conscious mind) compared to your true self which I have described as a force field of energy, as a limited perception of things in its environment.

Your true self has a complete overview of
every single thing in it's environment, but when you're not aware of who you are, how then is it possible to operate from that state consciously? You simply cannot. Remember those children raised by animals?

How ever, most people even though not aware of their true self , are still able to operate from that state unconsciously sometimes, but they can't be sure of what they get because brains can replay a memory of something in their heads, which they then, mistake for a revelation of something from God or whatever.

That is what has happened to the people you're referring to who come up with crap in their heads and call it creativity. They lack the proper guidance or training to know what is real from what is a figment of their imagination.

You find such persons mostly in Churches masquerading as Prophets , and elsewhere as seers and psychics.

However, this is not to say that they don't sometimes get it right , but what they produce is still highly influenced by brains that can deceive them, so it is mostly guesswork for them but which they will never admit.

When we go to sleep every night, our conscious mind is at abeyance ,which then enables our true self to operate unhindered, by having it's own experiences; seeing and knowing things that the conscious mind is unable to do while awake. The result of these experiences is what our brains record as dreams using the images already embedded in it so we can remember what we did while our bodies rest

I have already shared a link on this thread of people getting ideas from dreams to demonstrate that dreams are not just your brains processing thoughts in your heads while you sleep.

budaatum:
You are very amusing. I noticed you said you've influenced people with what you say. I see you doing it here.

First you started by claiming science, the use of my senses, is fallible, which I admit, then you ask me to accept what someone injected into your sense of hearing as so just because you have.

Forgive me for trusting my senses a lot more.


You use your senses of course, if you want to know at least, or you may not bother with sense use and just believe it because you were told it, but forgive me if I call you Adam. I am, of course, Eve.


Maybe you'd get it if I present it to you in another way.

If your daughter of about 4, suddenly looks into your eyes and tells you "daddy, I am a boy".....

Think carefully. Is it not more logical someone is telling your daughter stories and you are not using your mind?

Sorry triple. I have been rude.

It's why I mentioned you need to confirm that what you hear is from her is something she couldn't have possibly known or heard from some one else. Further questioning should reveal that.

There are. some guild lines to follow in asking those questions to make her talk more or you think of how to go about it yourself.

Sometimes, logic fails us, which makes
it then necessary to abandon it temporarily and apply creativity; outside how we used to think of certain things

budaatum:
Are they not discounted, as in found unworthy of consideration because they lack credibility, precisely because they are unreliable and stories, Triple?

The documented ones verified by Dr Tucker and his mentor, Ian Stevenson have never been discounted. You can search for their works on the net to find out what both have done and judge for yourself.

Before I stumbled on their works, I already was exposed to people who had no problem sharing their past life stories with me. Apart of the young girl I mentioned in my presentation, my childhood friend was constantly inundating me with stories of his past life from dreams which always end up true. Others have at different times recounted the same to me.

So the question now, would be ,how do I know if they were not just making up those stories?

If your daughter of about 4 , suddenly looks into your eyes and tell you " daddy, I know you before. I was your girlfriend in unilag But in final year, I died in a car accident" and then mentions her name and ask if you still remember ?

If you confirm all of these information to be true, and also confirm that there. is no way she would have known what she has revealed about the two of you, then it is something you shouldn't discount as just stories, except you a chronic sceptic who doubts everything even when presented with evidence.

If there's no outer kind of confirmation, then forget it. But hardly would you find a child of that age coming up with a make up story to deceive you. If that were to happen, take her to see a doctor immediately. Something is wrong.

Cases that were busted on the net, were stories made up by the people who pushed them to public space. Those stories could not be verified, with the people involved, later confessing that they lied

Some consideration is after all done to check if the stories have credibility which they are found to lack

.

The ones verified by Dr Tucker and his mentor have never been found to lack credibility. I am sure you never heard about them before. Even skeptics are silent about those ones.

The have developed a reliable method to investigate reincarnation stories. It has helped them to expose so many frauds who have tried to deceive the public. Some of the fake stories exposed that you may have heard of, is due to them. I already shared a link. You can follow that for a start.

HellVictorinho4:
In other words, you deprived me because of my attitude which is not less valuable than yours.


Your money doesn't make you a greater person....tell the whole world I said that!


If any bastard thinks it's funny, let the bastard retain such bastard thoughts till I change my lines.

Take your wailings to the people who deprived you. How is it possible for me to deprive you of something not in my control?

You're nothing thinking straight. Have you started doing drugs again?

HellVictorinho4:
Of course.


The person that is deprived of something that can't be retrieved doesn't forget but the person that deprives does.


A proof that the world is in shambles.

Nobody has deprived you of anything
It is your attitude that has deorived you of what you deserve .

Change your attitude and what you deserve will come to you without fighting for it.

If you don't learn from your mistakes and move on with your life, but to dwell on the past , you will remain where you are. You will remain where your attention is focused. That's a fact.

I will not give you shishi. Focus your attention on your life and make plans that will bring you success . Thats how you can move ahead and not by coming to nairaland to cry wolf all the time for help no one here is ready to render you, since most people here can already see through you.

Good luck