₦airaland Forum

It seems like you want every little detail. I don't have that much time, but I will try

MerryMonody:
Well, if this is our point of contention then we could shade it because I agree with you that religion is not without blame. The problem is acting like it's the only agent at work.

NON OF THEM do that

MerryMonody:
Man made religion, thus he will always be able to mold it to suit his cause. It all depends on what I want to see in the religious books, I could always justify whatever I want. KKK justified racially motivated killings, the Lord Resistance Army justified killings and child abuse, the Jewish Defence League justified bombing properties belonging to Arabs in America, even our wonderful Buddhists justified attacking mosques and muslim owned businesses in Sri Lanka and going further by killing them in Burma. Zen Samurai warriors in feudal Japan justified killing by telling themselves it was no worse than other stuff and that life was an illusion thus death was nothing. They said it was an act of compassion. A Sri Lankan king after a victorious battle against non-buddhists was told by his monks that those killed "were like animals. You will make Buddha's faith shine." Burmese rulers justified wars with the claim they were following the true buddhist doctrine. Yet no one says Buddhists are such violent bigots, because we know a few members of a group do not stand for all. It's common sense.

People seem to want to do their best to ignore ideology....

What is also common sense is noting that not all of them are as easy to manipulate for nefarious purposes as Islam is. Claiming otherwise is patently false.

There are even worse out there (but not by much!). However, luckily, they tend to not surpass the horizon where they become too big to kill, and we label them cults, killing them in their infancy!

You called Buddhists wonderful for a reason. Even if there's a hint of sarcasm in your statement, they earned that reputation. Again, no one (save maybe you, as you seem to be implying) calls most of their sects violent bigots for a reason; it is much harder to justify murder using most Buddhist philosophies. With Islam tho, well.... Please don't make me produce a list of all the times the prophet and his companions went out to pillage and to rape, the amount of times the koran demonizes the kaffir, the various barbaric hadiths and whatnot

It is a travesty.

(Oh, don't get me wrong, and this usually shouldn't warrant pointing out as it's obvious but it seems you want every detail - the other judeoxtian religions have their issues. Indeed, OT and Judaism are probably worse at face value, but they have mitigating factors that make them more adaptable to today's world. And ps, I didn't hold Buddhists up as some exemplers of all that is holy, I mentioned Jainism. I know about various violent Buddhist sects; warrior monks are not just fantasy. But regardless, by and large, compared to judeoxtians, they are saints. pps that doesn't mean all Jains would be saints either)

And not all people create religion. That whole article you posted was all about how the 0.0001% overlords have manipulated the world to do their bidding through history. There are lots and lots of followers who just blindly follow what their masters say.

Sure, most people are creating their own version of a religion, ie cherry picking. Most are not literalists, or fundies as their called in the states I believe, but to even insinuate they're not influenced by the ideologies their masters have instilled in them using these religions is also rather false. You yourself point out those in the North East are uneducated and poor, therefore more easily zombified I assume? Well, it would be much more difficult for a Buddhist to be able to manipulate them into becoming murderers and rapists using his doctrine than a Muslim. This is a fact. The islamic ideology is far more poisonous.

MerryMonody:
According to FBI stats 94% of terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by non-Muslims in America and there were more Jewish acts of terrorism than Muslim. Also in Europe less than 2% of terrorist acts were by muslims. According to Europol 84 out of the 152 terrorist attacks were done with ethno-nationalist and separatist intent while just 2 were religious. And these separatist terrorists also kill people and use bombs. Just because cnn isn't giving it 24 hour coverage doesn't mean it's not happening. A violent few should never be used to judge the whole group, let alone billions of people. That's plain wrong.

How many people do these ethno-terrorists kill? Regardless and most importantly, what are their intentions? What are their motivations?

In Chicago, this year alone I think something like 500 people have died due to gun crime. How many of them have died due to some Islamic terrorist attack? Dunno, but I'd wager something like 0-10

I will ignore newsworthyness, popularity doesn't necessarily mean important, but I will tell you why I find a terrorist attack from muslims far more dangerous to their society as a whole than these gun crimes, which are obviously causing a lot more actual damage to them - the ideology behind it. Simple. It contorts things significantly.

If the gang bangers (giggle) were given equal opportunity and what not, all the hoopla about inequality you go on about, their crime would essentially go away. Definitely. Their value systems and ideologies basically align with those of their oppressors, no real complications there. But guess what, once they give up their crime they would stop being gang bangers then.

For muslims, giving them all the money you would like to, would that stop them being muslim? lol no.

What of the richest countries with muslim majorities? What is Saudi's excuse for the $hitstorm that is their society? The UAE and co, are they poor? You also do know that stats show that a rather significant amount of the people that leave Britain to join ISIS aren't exactly poor or facing significant challenges with opportunity, yes? What's their excuse then? Or the fact that the amount of British muslims that have joined ISIS rivals the amount of British muslims that have joined the British Armed Forces since this wahala began? They're that oppressed??

Consider how many times has NK bombed the US mainland? Non. But if they did, and they began to frequently do so as Jihadists seem intent on doing, it would be far more significant, dangerous even, if left unabetted, as compared to the gun crime in Chicago, even if they only killed a fraction of the poeple gun crime killed. For the simple reason of the ideology behind it. It's not that NK would want to be just left alone, no, they would want to conquer, dominate, and impose their will on their society. They would want the US to acknowledge their dear Father as well.

Islam? No ifs, but or maybes, they would want the same. Through history, they have conquered by the sword, subjugated and instilled their will. They have also been very succesfull, until say the last 200 years. It is an imperialistic movement.

Actually, NK problem is more easily solved, just as Chicago's. As if NK masses were indeed given enough money, they would indeed drop their Dear Father's shenanigans and stop being communists. Look at China.

Muslims? No. They won't stop being muslim. And once again, being muslim is the antithesis to most of the things you claim to stand for. It is very problematic and often outright dangerous.

Now, let me be clear, majority of Muslims are not Islamists. Polls show that about 15% of their population are islamists. Islamists are the immediate danger; they are the ones that want to enforce sharia everywhere. Be it by revolution, inspiring coups or what not, or by political means, insidiously waiting within a society until they can amass the powers to inflict their will. Jihadists are essentially Islamists that are bringing the war to your doorsteps, no waiting around (ISIS may be even a little more extreme than usual, as they're also an end of the world death cult to boot, but that may not be immediately relevant). These groups all want the same thing, it's just their methodology (and the way they interprete script) that differ.

So most of the muslims do not want Jihad, you say? That's true, that doesn't mean most of them aren't conservative muslims, and that is also very troubling. Not immediately troubling, but troubling nevertheless. They still want sharia for instance, polls show this clearly; they just want a version that isn't forced unto them by another sect/group (sunni islam has no clerics, btw, so they're left with choice. The choice being barbaric and less barbaric for most part, of course, unless you indulge in some powerful gymnastics).

So they don't exactly want to force it on other groups just as they don't want it forced on them, there's a little of the golden rule just holding them back. This is all good and fine, but it doesn't mean this people still don't support stuff that is basically inimical to humanistic and secular principles. Most still want to amputate thieves, stone adulterers, treat women like second class citizens, kill apostates and what not. And most importantly with regards to terrorism, they are still bound, via tribalism, to the Islamists. They would still identify with their Islamist bretheren due to similarities in ideology, much more than to you who (I hope) hopes to cut down on this madness. They may not want to force their barbarism on you, but if they find themselves in a situation where it is the norm, they are not wont to balk at it anywhere near as bad as they should. Actually, they would support Sharia, even if they didn't want it initially forced, and (sometimes tacitly or unintentionally) support many other follies, like outright terrorism. Just look at, among many other things, their reactions to some cartoons when compared to their reactions to ISIS atrocities in the name of their religion. What sort of message does that send??

When these conservatives become more reasonable, and attuned to humanistic principles, then I will start to have some faith. When the Islamic population can show that it can support a liberal faction, just as other religions seem very capable of, I will have faith. Until then, they have a lot of work to do. I mean, 15% of them are Islamists. That is a staggering ratio (and number, that's more than the population of 9ja). I'm sure if took a similar poll of the xtian world to find out how many of them wanted to force Judaic law on you, you'd get nowhere near that number. And again, you can't just dismiss ideology and claim socioeconomic blah blah. Look at their history, look at the Islamic world and the rich countries, etc etc

tl: dr; the islamic endgame and threat is significantly more dangerous than most (if not all of) these other groups you list.

(I'll also add calling it out for what it is shouldn't be a crime.)

MerryMonody:
Unfortunately you've not had the best experiences with muslims. Some of the most wonderful (and quite liberal) human beings I've known were muslims. Generalisation is of no good. As for those in the north-east, I believe they are poor and uneducated, thus highly impressionable. Basically easy prey for radicals with underlying political motives.

I already told you I know many excellent human beings that happen to be muslim.

I am not generalizing, I'm pointing to facts. I'm even being generous by highlighting that most aren't Islamists, as most do still support sharia in some form. Sharia most certainly has no place in humanism.

Now, I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place, but you're definitely not helping.

Why is it that I could criticize NK, but if I did that with Islam I'd get labled a racist?? That does not help the situation in any manner whatsoever.

You are getting in the way.

Some advice, if you will. You're better off getting your liberal muslim friends to speak up, to help reform their religion so the Islamists and their conservative cousins aren't the norm, than this.

That is, if it's possible...

MerryMonody:
It's like those western folks drawn to Isis. These guys feel like they are in the fringes of society. They feel lost and without purpose. The sect promises glory and meaning and rebelling against a society they feel has cheated them. Same thing. Yes religion plays a part, but it's not the main part.

History had shown us time and time again, from the Tamil Tigers responsible for the most suicide bombings of the 20th century to the Stalin regime, "absence of religion does not equal absence of violence." There is always some underlying sociopolitical fault, or psychological. For instance I once watched a documentary about a serial killer who used atheism to justify his murders. I guess we could conclude all atheists are potentially evil. I mean wouldn't it be wrong to say "he doesn't know what he means and his problem is elsewhere?"

Religion plays a part for sure, but that part is exaggerated. Holy books have remained the same, terrorism has increased. How come? Social political economic blah blah. That's it. Even if it was fifty fifty, I believe my previous post made a reasonable argument positing that the most reasonable way to eliminate religion is through a change of the socioeconomic structure. Thus it still reinforces the argument that evangelical atheists, especially of the bullying kind, might not be getting it right.

There's a lot wrong here, but most generally already dealt with above. (well, except maybe your claim that terrorism has increased, are you sure about that? I know we're living in very peaceful times ATM, historically speaking, with regards to violence in particular. Not sure about terrorism specifically. Anyways, it might be an unimportant quibble)

May edit if you ask for it, but I hope I don't have to

MerryMonody:
I read part of the Harris interview. I didn't see how that quote was taken out of context. To be honest it does seem like a sh!tty thing to say. Why even compare? I doubt he would have done that if he had be raped and had blood constantly oozing from his arse (as has happened to men who were being frequently raped in a war torn country in Africa, can't remember which) or if his daughter was gang raped. Rape is such a serious issue that cause women all around the world to constantly be on edge and live in fear. There was no need to compare, just seemed insensitive.

Oh the humanity!!!

Where did he state that rape wasn't one of the most horrible things one could go through?

In fact, I think he sees rape as one of the most heinous injustices imaginable. So much so he used it to show just how severely he takes the religious scourge.

And yes, I agree with him. Just for one, consider how, for instance, religion is used to justify rape. See ISIS and their slaves, or Boko Haram, or fundamentalists raping teh ghey away, or people using it to justify their god given right to marital rape. etc etc

And once again oh, when speaking of religion, we speak of those whose ideologies condone (or can be very easily used to condone) such behavior, not the benign ones.

MerryMonody:
And it wasn't just about moral superiority for the sake of it. He was also pointing out how values of new atheists are similar to those on the right.

And he completely failed.

It was an empty, knee jerk interpretation of what he meant to convey.

MerryMonody:
Please tell me when they did try the respectfull approach, how it failed, and how the bullying approach is more successful.

I must have missed all the various times they've engaged various religious folk to debate. You're telling me they've been disrespectful every time? Or even that their default behavior is to be disrespectful?

Please look up their history, and start from the beginning.

And I never said bullying is more successful, but it can be useful

Wait, who the heck is bullying who here?? Generally speaking, theists and humanists, who does the bullying??

So let me rephrase that, mockery can be more successful in certain situations. It is in fact used all the time in social situations to correct behavior.

MerryMonody:
Homo religiolos? Religious humans? No I don't get the point of this.

The point was to show what a proper disparaging remark looks like, as opposed to what you're railing against. Admittedly, I could do much better, but I'm holding back

MerryMonody:
I'm not saying we all must, just saying it's the most effective method.

Sayeth thou

I could write another tome on how that is not straight forward, how it isn't applicable (and often not feasible) to most of the world in particular, and especially through most of our history.

But no

MerryMonody:
That I disagree with. Atheism will always be simply a lack of belief. Atheistic movements however, I believe he aptly describes. Besides, many new atheists don't help the standard definition when they, in the usual elitist fashion equate atheism with rationality and mental superiority. Not helping.

Not elitist if stating fact (and this is something you seem to have a problem with).

Atheism more rational, fact. Not an absolute truth mind you, but definitely more rational

Mentally superior, emotionally satisfying? Not necessarily, of course.

But again, atheism is simply lack of belief; even they assert that (to the best of my knowledge). Anything else is just extra baggage.


Lengthy but still rushed. I may edit as I see fit (and will indicate as much), but feel free to respond

Edit:minor stuff, I think..

This ur thread na wa. Celebrate life, fascination with death

U for just become reporter

Make I add my own, but did is a diffrent theme - d future

Mars. Pic is adjusted to show what it would like with earth's athmosphere, but it is the actual planet

Thanks for the thread boss

MerryMonody:
The author believes it's hate misdirected at religion, when the true vices are socioeconomic and political.

Even when people show up and tell you to your face - they are fighting a holy war, quoting their holy books and whatnot, others would come and tell you those people are too stoopid to know what they mean and their problem is elsewhere.

Some people would do anything to avoid blaming the obvious. Do you know anyone like that?

Sure socioeconomic, political and blah blah could be involved; nobody denies that. But to ignore religion??

Consider nigeria. Is the north-east the only part of the country mired in poverty? No. Is it the only part with issues? No. I'd even say, and at the very least, the south-south have it far, far worse. And through no fault of their own for the most part, especially when you consider their oyel. Yet I don't see mend indiscriminately killing civilians and hijacking school girls to use as brides.

Do you happen to know who they were emulating when they indulged in such folly? When they claim the earth is flat and that boko is haram, did they not tell you exactly why they make such claims?

But no, I'm sure their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

MerryMonody:
Thats why it's a critique. In a critique you mention qualities in a text, both good and bad. It doesn't mean you think the text is right or wrong. He never said, explicitly or implicitly that because the author was self deprecating that he was somehow right. It was just a positive quality he noted. That's what you do in critiques, you note down qualities. They are not necessarily premises for an argument. They are just qualities you take cognisance of. I could say that you use metaphors well in your write-up, yet disagree with the conclusion. Also he mentioned three positive qualities of the book and four negative qualities. It's sad that you chose to cherry pick and make conclusions from that.

The bolded is what I'm getting at. Sure, a positive quality in everyday life perhaps, but useful in this context how? For what? So being self depriciating somehow automatically makes you good?

Are we here for the facts, or here to just show off just how lovely and PC we are?

Lemme give you a better example of what I'm driving at. Further on he goes on to say this

MerryMonody:
And he addresses the contentious issue of gender, which he asserts is one of the main areas in which the secular movement shows its basic conservatism. He provides some interesting and relevant evidence, including quotations of controversial comments by Dawkins. Curiously, though, he never mentions a stunning remark Sam Harris made to an interviewer in 2009: “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”

Oh, would you think of the children!!!

Ridiculous, knee jerking, silly even, to highlight this as some sort of negative, as he's obviously misrepresenting Harris' position without stating the context.

But no, it sounds oh so horrible, so he puts it in there just so he could look like the one with moral superiority.

It's empty.....

MerryMonody:
Well I believe humanism in its true unadulterated sense is the search for a humane and learned society, for one in which all men have dignity, in mind and in body. I believe a true humanist respects other humans, and is kind and understanding in his approach at leading people to reason. The best way to do this is not to bully people or laugh at how primitive they are. As I said in my previous posts it's to change the social structure. Of course there's nothing wrong with engaging in civil discourse with them, but I believe the former is the most productive.

Cool. Your beliefs are fine. But who say Dawkins et al have not tried kindness and respect when dealing with homo religiolos? (see what I did here?)

On a random note, you see the italicized, Islam is the antithesis that.

MerryMonody:
Furthermore, I don't mean socialism per say. Both socialism and capitalism at their extremes are horrible for society. I mean a mixture of the two, possibly something like democratic socialism. Remember those countries we love to mention when arguing with theists about how the best countries are predominantly irreligious? Denmark, Sweden, Norway. That's the system they all practise.

This is all good and fine, I even like many aspects of that model as well, but I struggle to see how all atheists must somehow subscribe to it...

MerryMonody:
Funny enough that's how he describes new atheists. Many of them now side with those on the right on a number of issues.

Well, no.

You see, like you,I believe in all sorts of good things as well, like equality, freedom etc etc. Muslims do not. And worse yet, they actively seek to take away those freedoms. (Anecdotally, I've personally had to deal with this, but we can ignore that, for now.) This is what makes Islam special. Now, when you stand for those things but empower those who seek take them away, then please tell me, which side are you on?

I'm not sure this needs saying, but most of these new atheists this dude is riled up about, do you see them making noise about say Jainism? No. In fact, Harris has a lot of beliefs I balk at, usually related to Buddhism. Usually, it's the judeoxtians and in particular, that one elephant.

MerryMonody:
Won't do you no harm to read the whole article.

I've read as much of the article as I can for now. Can you explain this oga?

op: In a move as useful as it was overdue (a few people have tried this, but to my knowledge none nearly as successfully), LeDrew demolishes one of the most widely held myths that atheists have about themselves, namely, the belief that atheism is simply a matter of not believing in any gods. Atheism is in fact “a complex term with an even more complex history” and “cannot be reduced to one single all-encompassing definition.” Werleman remarks that “on its own,” atheism “is a non-positive assertion.” Unbelief, however, is rarely “on its own.” As LeDrew points out, with the rise of evolutionary theory, atheism “moved from simple negation of religious beliefs to an affirmation of liberalism, scientific rationality, and the legitimacy of the institutions and methodology of modern science—and thus from religious criticism to a complete ideological system.” Atheism, then, is “a form of belief—rather than a lack of belief—shaped by its socio-historical context” and “inextricably bound up with” a plethora of principles that emerged from the Enlightenment.

Really??

I try to read it, but it cringe inducing for me.

For instance, I find it hard to take anyone that uses the word islamaphobia seriously (thank Zeus the word isn't in auto-correct's dictionary! ). And I do this as someone from a Muslim family, that well knows and is involved with many good people that happen to be muslim. Do you really understand why Islam is considered especially dangerous? Maybe you think this is all racism?

Or the little unnecessary personal opinions and bias. In describing the first book, he feels the need to describe the authors' style as self deprecating. What does that have to do with anything? So (perceived) arrogance immediately equals wrong while (perceived) humility is right?? Do you know just how wrong that is? You might find a quibble like this trite but when little details like that are in a piece it points to it being little more than fluffy propaganda. Little substance, just virtue signalling masquerading as something else.

I mean, I most certainly am not a socialist. You seem to be saying to be saying in your summary that I can't be a humanist for that reason. How is that factual in any manner whatsoever?

There might be some substance in the actual article, but it's hard to get there (at least for me)

Tl:dr; it looks like one of those meaningless (and mostly political) articles from someone so out on the left he's now on the right.

Joshthefirst:
Looks like you're genuinely mad. I am harbinger. Stop being undecided and make up your mind about me.



Nonsense. When did I imply all this? Especially the emboldened? You and I are saying two different things entirely. You argue that your thoughts simply come from your brain. And I reject that notion. You come up with, conceive, and create thoughts, immaterial substance, from nothing. The difference between you and a self-evaluating algorithm is quite self-evident.

Even then, some Intelligent animals think and overcome basic challenges of their environment. Still, the difference between your consciousness and theirs is immense. You are not your brain. Brain is what the soul uses to communicate image with the physical world. You are self-aware. You understand the individual depth of your very being.



This is simply not enough to hinge your hopes on man. Believe the truth. Stop looking for news of discoveries that will pacify your stubborn rejection of intelligence.




No you dont. A thought is not an algorithm.

Give an example of basic principles you and alphago share. And dont give me nonsense. Explain what thoughts are and where you thoughts come from. We can define and quantify algorithms but we cannot quantify thoughts can we?


You have provided me with nothing but baseless conclusions of non-existent concurring and agreements

I believe I have explained away this God of the gaps issue many times before but selective amnesia plagues you as usual. You may need to reinstall some brain programs maybe

You need help

Joshthefirst:
Try to understand what is meant by observation and you would see that there is no such thing without intelligence.

Look at a quote from the link you sent:


Apparatuses do not register decisions, only humans do. The apparatus is simply an instrument of our observation.

Read the full quote.. .

He states it very clearly that the device need not be human.

He describes 'decisions' as 'processes in space and time'. Simply put; events.


Apparatuses register 'decisions' all.the.time.


Even if I indulged and played the language game, the machine you're using to read this right now registered (and made) thousands of decisions from booting up to displaying this page, no? (don't believe me? Look at the code!)

JackBizzle:
In my head, I see you as a skinny caveman.

With the way Buhari is dealing with me, you're not far
off

I miss corruption

HardMirror:
I doubt. Humans have eaten humans in dare situations
Like this 1972 plane crash survivors who had to feed on eachother not because they thought it was their right, but nothing else to eat. Snakes don't feed on chickens because it thinks it's its right but because that is what it can feed on.
Some tribes apologize animals they kill before eating them. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217141/I-eat-piece-friend-survive-Torment-1972-Andes-plane-crash-survivor-haunted-ordeal-40-years-later.html

All this is still humans applying their human reasoning to their individual value systems to determine what's right or wrong. The status quo in another species would be completely different when they apply their logic to their value system. I highly doubt snakes feel bad for their prey, for instance.

To avoid long story I'll ask simply this: does the universe revolve around humanity?

I could also argue that stuff like remorse is irrelevant, and people see canibalism as a right under certain conditions, but that is another loooong story as well.

If you're referencing cannibalism in this context, have you heard of Richard Parker?

http://nowiknow.com/richard-parker/

Such an anthropocentric view here

Animals have their own rights. Snake kills hen, it thinks it is its right to do so.

Doubles

DeepSight:
I neither claim to be a good person nor do I believe myself worthy of anything better. But I still stare reality in the face. No placebos bro. Ah well, except my GUINNESS STOUT.

They used to laugh at me for being skinny, I drank stout, now I'm comically overweight

Stout is no placebo

Spirituality dey epp some peeps

For instance, when faced with their mortality, one can make up any wishy washy unverifiable claim to make himself feel better. Eg, the soul (whatever that is) floats to a higher plane if the person is good (no doubt the claimant will claim he is one of these good peeps). This way the person can sleep better at night. Pointing out there's no difference between this claim and claiming you are instead bound for Valhalla, if you're a good enough warrior that is, will no doubt land on deaf ears, but mayhaps I digress

Anyways, in other words, it's a placebo. And like all placebos, eg religion, well, they come with their folly.

So yeah, ultimately quite shortsighted

They should

I for like become vegan, but for this country /economy.. No way..

https://www.nairaland.com/3347169/hillary-clinton-may-been-poisoned

Abeg, what is it about this environment that breeds this kind of paranoia?? It's far too common.

This guy is highly educated. He should have some critical thinking skills!! (Granted, his paranoia has been vindicated once before, but still....)

What is it that causes these kinds of fantastical leaps of imagination in this our environment?? This kind of thinking fuels a lot of the religious folly we see. "Enemies" coming after you....

He left this country decades ago I believe, yet he's still demons around every corner. Why??

Joshthefirst:
depends on what you think AI means

wiki: Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the intelligence of a (hypothetical) machine that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of artificial intelligence research and an important topic for science fiction writers and futurists. Artificial general intelligence is also referred to as "strong AI",[1] "full AI"[2] or as the ability of a machine to perform "general intelligent action".[3]

.......

Many different definitions of intelligence have been proposed (such as being able to pass the Turing test) but there is to date no definition that satisfies everyone.[6] However, there is wide agreement among artificial intelligence researchers that intelligence is required to do the following:[7]

reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty;
represent knowledge, including commonsense knowledge;
plan;
learn;
communicate in natural language;
and integrate all these skills towards common goals.

Other important capabilities include the ability to sense (e.g. see) and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects) in the world where intelligent behaviour is to be observed.[8] This would include an ability to detect and respond to hazard.[9] Many interdisciplinary approaches to intelligence (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence and decision making) tend to emphasise the need to consider additional traits such as imagination (taken as the ability to form mental images and concepts that were not programmed in)[10] and autonomy.[11] Computer based systems that exhibit many of these capabilities do exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, decision support system, robot, evolutionary computation, intelligent agent), but not yet at human levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

Joshthefirst:
What did the fact that observation collapsed the wave function of a particle tell you?

Is observation conscious activity? Does the fact that consciousness directly brings casualty to the very character of matter in reality not tell you that consciousness transcends physical matter itself?

The bolded: NO

Or more accurately, not necessarily. Consciousness is not a requirement.

wiki: In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

A number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. For instance, Fritjof Capra writes:

"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum" [1]

However, other authorities downplay any special role of human observers:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]

Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"[3]).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

And when it's said that other authorities downplay any special role for humans, they mean the vast majority

wiki: A poll was conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011 using 33 participants (including physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers). Researchers found that 6% of participants (2 of the 33) indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)". They also mention that "Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation."[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Now, to be clear, there are various intepretations as to what's going on, and non are definitive. But if you're looking at which are more supported, Copenhagen, many worlds, etc, definitely have more support than Von Neumann–Wigner (AKA consciousness causes collapse). Even Wigner himself stopped supporting it.

Joshthefirst:
Have you heard of the double slit experiment?

Yes, and I've heard of quantum eraser one as well.

Joshthefirst:
So your consciousnesses is limited to computational functions?


If you think all there is to the essence of consciousness is background information processing then you're very wrong.

This theory is crap, as the basic issues of human self awareness, quality, and even diversity in language and intelligence cannot and can never be explained by qualitative science, by definition.

Are you saying we'll never create AI?

Reyginus:
It's simple logic. I don't know why you can't see it. Whatever is the beginning of all cannot have a beginning. How's that difficult to agree with?

I've already told you that logic is flawed (remember? How could something work within time without some sort of beginning, a first instance? A starting point? That in itself highlights the contradiction of your eternity)

But it doesn't matter as, and once again, even if I accept your logic, why can't the universe be it??

You say BB has a beginning? Fine. That doesn't mean the singularity had one.....

Nor does it mean its precursor(s), if it had such, necessarily had a beginning, no?

This is very simple reyginus.....

Reyginus:
If I wanted to be mischievous I'd post another link where explosion and a beginning was talked about.

Your Wikipedia explanation talks about a possible extrapolation to a singularity to give our Universe the age of 13.8 billion years. I don't see how you'd agree with this and the universe will still be the uncaused cause.

Age suggests a beginning. If our Universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago then our Universe cannot be the first or uncaused cause. The uncaused cause cannot begin to exist at any time. It is logically impossible.

We've done this before, for pages sef: that's one reason I'm hesitant to ask you why. Which kind unreasonableness be Dis?

If you're not happy, after all these years, feel free to post your definitions. mayhaps I'll address them.. .

I likely won't, but at least try and read sources on the article I posted, or even just google "was the BB an explosion? ", for your chrissakes! Heck, how would the cbr work if it didn't occur everywhere??

However, and another reason I hesitate to ask about BBs nature is, as you somewhat finally note - it doesn't really matter to my immediate point.

BB or another theory? Moot. All that matters is why in the universe do you just arbitrarily decide whatever it is that it began as can't be uncaused yet your god!? can??

For instance, assuming BB, if it extrapolates a singularity, why can't it have lasted forever? Or why couldn't it have had a precursor(s) of some sort that lasted forever?? That is impossible yet your god, in all its allegedly glorious complexity, isn't??

And again, who says timelessness of the type you speak of must necessarily be a property of your uncaused cause? That it can't be first and uncaused at the same time? I've already told you there are problems and nuances to that notion....but meh

Reyginus:
Time to define what we are talking about. This is from Google:

'Definition of big bang theory :

a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density — compare steady state theory'

Do you agree or disagree with the above definition? If yes, you can post your definition and source so we begin next stage.

No. It's quite weong

It wasn't an explosion per say. That point referred to expanded. As a result, you can't go to any single point and say this is where the Big Bang occured: it occurred (and is still occurring) everywhere

Anyways, wiki

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[5][6][7] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[8][9] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.[10] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[11] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

Reyginus:
I'm answering your question. How can the universe always be when your Big Bang theory claims the universe came from a Singularity? Or you don't know that? Do you admit the Big Bang Theory is nonsense maybe I'd give my own reason?

The Big Bang knows next to nothing about that singularity.

Again, it states nothing of where it came from, if it did indeed come from somewhere, etc.

Somewhat related-The Big Bang Theory also knows very little about the nature of the universe during early stages of the expansion

I'm hesitant to ask why you call it nonsense, but OK. Since apparently it will answer my queshon (it won't)

Reyginus:
It's very appalling. What's worse is that the majority of Nigerians, who claim rights to proper and soundest education, are in support of this madness going on.

I was discussing with a friend on Saturday on the illegality of the matter. The next thing he took it to a whole new level on the improper training given to the Igbos and their pride.

After watching him rant, I showed him a picture of the goat wearing the tag Jonathan and he couldn't say a word. I asked him if the man did wrong by tagging it 'Jonathan' he didn't say a word.

He kept repeating his conviction on the ego and pride of Igbos. Lol. I told him everyone has an ego. But igbos own too much, he said. I asked how but his evidently facial rage told me no answer.

The next option, like our suspected paid APC agents do here, is to talk about Culture. I asked him what exactly is the Culture of Nigeria. He couldn't point at anything.

I told him Nigeria is not a nation and how exactly could such culture be derived if not following that simple thing that joined us without our consent–Democracy via neocolonialism.

I asked him if Nigeria is heterogeneous why should we talk of culture then he switched to African Culture. Lol. African culture in the context of what? A democracy?

I told him naming dogs after persons or titles is African culture. One of my grandfathers wife got a dog she calls 'Ichie', a title in Igboland, and he said I'm lying. Lol.

Next was telling me he shouldn't have written it on the body of the dog. I brought up the case of the goat named Jonathan and he kept quiet. Lol. Hypocrisy is a disease.

As long as we are a democratic country all our lives and actions should be governed by the tenets of democracy.

All the talk of culture and egocentrism holds no water as long as democracy is what we have decided to practise.

Speaking about culture here is a cheap blackmail and pointless. If it is not illegal then it can never be illegal. It could only be immoral but it can never be illegal. The two are different.

He who does things like that should be ready for a street lynching and not a state backed punishment. The Educated ones, what do you think?

Oga, you usually make half sense

This is the only post of yours that's over 100 words wey no enter bush after a fine start

Was the guy a Muslim.?

Reyginus:
I thought your science told us the universe came into existence?

You didn't answer my queshon

But no, it doesn't. It says very little about the early stages of the Big Bang, let alone it's origins. It doesn't even say if there's an origin or no.

Why? Because they simply don't know

You go answer my question?

hahn:
Guy leave story.

I have taken up the challenge on your behalf. All expense paid though. Next weekend.

Naijadeyhia can restore the guys limb on Friday and I checkout of the hotel on Saturday. All recorded of course

See new challenger na

You know an amputee willing to take the challenge?

Better yet, do you have a dead person you want to revive?

Reyginus:
First cause? The idea of a first cause makes no sense. I prefer uncaused cause. Except your idea of first cause does not recognize coming into existence we can then speak in such terms.

In that case, a first cause has always being. Has always existed. Any idea of it coming into existence suggests a causative agent. And our first cause goes a step further. This builds into an infinite regress.

Your question is thus invalidated. God cannot come into existence. He cannot begin to exist. The idea of coming into being suggests a change and change is not possible without an agent. He can't be the agent if he was made to exist.

Kayi, see all this gymnastics. Why can't it be both uncaused and first? And suggesting that something's always existed brings with it it's own set of problems. Eg, with this universe, if something had existed forever, without a beginning, then entropy would have made it useless. How could something work within time without some sort of beginning work sef? ?

But all that matters not to our point.

Why can't the universe be your uncaused cause?

Tip - Don't use my points from above.

Joshthefirst:
What's the difference between your consciousnesses and that of a cat?

I am capable of certain computational functions a cat is incapable of, just as a cat is capable of certain functions I'm incapable of performing.

Hardware differences do not help, of course,

Reyginus:
God sprout of anything? I've never heard of this before.

Kayi..

Oya, what is first cause?

If you're still dependent on your parents then you need not tell them

In fact, don't, for now

Reyginus:
Lol. Ba kashi na ba ne? Kashi na magana na.

We are simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in your position when you claim god can sprout out of nothing but the universe can't.

In fact, it seems to me like most don't believe something can come from nothing (though personally, I believe that to be possible, in a sense)

Reyginus:
Mai Ya Faru?

kayi kashi a churchi

johnydon22:
Nope it's not Deism but pantheism or spinozaism.

Deism/theism are almost the same thing they include belief in a personal God [God(s) that can be referred to as a person- anthropomorphical Gods] - strictly what atheism rejects though. Only that a deist coins an indifferent deity.

Pantheism is still atheism in the basic sense because it rejects belief in personal Gods but rather uses the word "God" for the universe [nature]

deist god is not necesarilly anthropormophic. how u dey?