LordReed:


Then you should have reiterated your stance. Meanwhile here you are debating about morality so how am supposed to have taken you seriously that you aren't here for a debate?

We were discussing the relationship between mind and body!

budaatum:


Like beauty, right? In the eyes of you the beholder?

Those seeking knowledge don't normally work that way, and are more willing to consider what makes perfect sense to others, and why.

If it doesn't make sense to you, it could mean that
1. You are obstinate about your position
2. You refuse to negate the other person's view with valid arguments rather than repeating your assertions that such views are not correct
3. You have not presented an alternative reasonings that answer questions the other views cannot

I've been clear in my presentations, can you present your own?

LordReed:


The constituted authority also changes so no sir, there is nothing like absolute morality.

BTW glad you agree the law can and does change so again you've checkmated yourself.

Can you please check if I've discussed absolute morality with you?

I've discussed with you Objective Morality which is from a constituted authority (God or Government) and is not debatable!

TenQ:

1. Sufficient information is relative my dear Buda!

Is it? Say, I have knowledge of say, numbers up to a relative 100, is that sufficient information about numbers? And what would you think a person with relative knowledge of a thousand or ten thousand or fractions or decimals say of me when I claim my relative knowledge of 100 is sufficient?

TenQ:
2. You were the one who brought up the issue of insufficient information not me.

I believe this your statement is be based on insufficient information/knowledge.

TenQ:

In summary: We do not have sufficient information similar to that which we have with softwares acting on a computer: thus, we can only generalise.

TenQ:

If it doesn't make sense to you, it could mean that
1. You are obstinate about your position
2. You refuse to negate the other person's view with valid arguments rather than repeating your assertions that such views are not correct
3. You have not presented an alternative reasonings that answer questions the other views cannot
I've been clear in my presentations, can you present your own?

Might all these not be a description of your
very self, is precisely my point TenQ, which is why I am doing "Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic" of your point in contrast to mine which I am presenting but which you seem to not see not to talk of consider.

budaatum:


Is it? Say, I have knowledge of say, numbers up to a relative 100, is that sufficient information about numbers? And what would you think a person with relative knowledge of a thousand or ten thousand or fractions or decimals say of me when I claim my relative knowledge of 100 is sufficient?

A straw man argument sir.

Is the knowledge of history of Africa 2000 years ago sufficient representation of reality at that time?
How much does the most acclaimed historians know?

The two questions above present a SUBJECTIVE kind of answer.

budaatum:

I believe this your statement is be based on insufficient information/knowledge.

Insufficient knowledge about the SOUL and BODY!

But we have a sufficient information about Softwares and Computer Hardwares.

We can then use that which we know Very well to explain that which we don't know. All theories work like this Mr Buda.

budaatum:


I believe I did answer your question and you are refusing to accept it is what I think.

It was an objective question with four options

budaatum:

That totality of buda is what is being presented to you while it seems you are trying to split buda into aspects of a Brain, Your Mind, Your Soul and Your Body.

If Buda's two hands were surgically removed, will Buda still be Buda?

What if in addition, Buda's two legs were surgically removed, will Buda still be Buda?

What if after this Buda's kidney and spleen and lungs were replaced with machines (God forbid), will Buda still be Buda?


What then is the totality of Buda?

budaatum:


Note that nowhere does it say philosophers "generalise from insufficient information", but that they do the opposite and go questioning.

I did generalise from sufficient information about Computer Programs and Computer Hardware. I can tell you that I have sufficient background in programming using both low level and several high level languages. I have worked on microcontrollers and associated electronics to develop smart devices. My practical knowledge of the workings of computers is well above average. I know what I'm talking about with respect to computers and its inner workings.

My knowledge (of computer hardware and programming) has helped me to comprehend the insufficient knowledge of the workings of the soul and body. If you have a better example that we can use, please free free! If you feel that the analogy of the program-hardware interface is not good enough OR it doesn't explain some things or observations, bring such up. Otherwise, present a better theory!

budaatum:


Might all these not be a description of your
very self, is precisely my point TenQ, which is why I am doing "Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic" of your point in contrast to mine which I am presenting but which you seem to not see not to talk of consider.

I honestly wish you presented a better theory!

Theories are not laws, they are subject to modifications or replacement!

A theory even if NOT perfect is never discarded UNTIL a better theory comes to light.

TenQ:

I honestly wish you presented a better theory!

Theories are not laws, they are subject to modifications or replacement!

A theory even if NOT perfect is never discarded UNTIL a better theory comes to light.

I don't particularly have theories of my own regarding things like souls, to be honest, though I have, for sake of knowing, studied some literature on the subject, but I take it like I do "inasmuch as I have considered things I see before me instead of the crap I choose to believe inside my own head".

Take physical you, TenQ, as in, the TenQ who has presented to my awareness. Are you not sufficiently mysterious enough for me to be insufficiently informed about you so as to delve deeper so I know you more? Now imagine I ignore physical TenQ and start looking for TenQ's soul and you might see how insufficiently informed generalisations might make one seem.

That said, I'm sure its because I do not have a soul detecting analyser or whatever it might be called. My bad. Though, ignoring physical TenQ for TenQ's soul seems very rude and disrespectful to TenQ, to me, because it would mean I have insufficiently considered the physical TenQ you've presented.

TenQ:

We were discussing the relationship between mind and body!

TenQ:

Can you please check if I've discussed absolute morality with you?

I've discussed with you Objective Morality which is from a constituted authority (God or Government) and is not debatable!

Rest.

budaatum:


I don't particularly have theories of my own regarding things like souls, to be honest, though I have, for sake of knowing, studied some literature on the subject, but I take it like I do "inasmuch as I have considered things I see before me instead of the crap I choose to believe inside my own head".

Take physical you, TenQ, as in, the TenQ who has presented to my awareness. Are you not sufficiently mysterious enough for me to be insufficiently informed about you so as to delve deeper so I know you more? Now imagine I ignore physical TenQ and start looking for TenQ's soul and you might see how insufficiently informed generalisations might make one seem.

That said, I'm sure its because I do not have a soul detecting analyser or whatever it might be called. My bad. Though, ignoring physical TenQ for TenQ's soul seems very rude and disrespectful to TenQ, to me, because it would mean I have insufficiently considered the physical TenQ you've presented.

Even without you seeing TenQ, you can work from what you absolutely know to postulate about the TenQ you haven't seen

Like how much of Buda do I know? Not too much but I still know a little of him even though I've never seen him

1. Buda is a grown man
2. Buda is a Nigerian
3. All Nigerians are negroes, therefore Buda is Negro
4. Buda reads a lot (or used to)
5. He is on Nairaland


No one has a machine to measure the mind or soul, therefore it falls in a realm where we ALL have insufficient information.

TenQ:

Even without you seeing TenQ, you can work from what you absolutely know to postulate about the TenQ you haven't seen

Like how much of Buda do I know? Not too much but I still know a little of him even though I've never seen him

1. Buda is a grown man
2. Buda is a Nigerian
3. All Nigerians are negroes, therefore Buda is Negro
4. Buda reads a lot (or used to)
5. He is on Nairaland

No one has a machine to measure the mind or soul, therefore it falls in a realm where we ALL have insufficient information.

If buda generalises from my postulates of TenQ based on so little then I buda must love being ignorant because it is far too insufficient knowledge for me to claim to know you, TenQ. I mean. Our discussion so far is an introduction to so many conversations we might have over so many years during which I know I'll learn so much more about TenQ, so perhaps my consciousness of my current ignorance about TenQ gets in the way of the hubris of delving into TenQ's soul.

Please know that if buda adopts the above attitude to knowing [about] TenQ to that used to knowing about souls or anything at all, then buda is a lazy ignorant fuq who has not bothered to ask and knock and seek with all her heart and soul and mind and being and entire existence.

TenQ:

It was an objective question with four options


If Buda's two hands were surgically removed, will Buda still be Buda?

What if in addition, Buda's two legs were surgically removed, will Buda still be Buda?

What if after this Buda's kidney and spleen and lungs were replaced with machines (God forbid), will Buda still be Buda?


What then is the totality of Buda?

The totality of Buda is whatever buda has become at the exact moment that you enquire, and your own ability to see totalities instead of perhaps just the physical body or the soul.

At the moment, buda consists of arms and legs and kidney and spleen and lungs, and mind too, and so far as you are concerned, the words of buda that you read, and removing or replacing any one of them in particular will still be buda even if buda looses buda's mind or is rotting six feet deep, you will point to buda and say that is this particular totality of buda. At least depending on how narrow the focus is, of course.

We have a thread on here about replacing the parts of a ship, my Lord might remember.

NNTR:
Philippians 2:5-8b
5Have this same attitude in yourselves which was in Christ Jesus
[look to Him as your example in selfless humility],
6who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God
[as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes--the entire nature of Deity],
did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted
[as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];
7but emptied Himself [without renouncing or diminishing His deity,
but only temporarily giving up the outward expression of divine equality and His rightful dignity]
by assuming the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men
[He became completely human but was without sin, being fully God and fully man].
8After He was found in [terms of His] outward appearance as a man [for a divinely-appointed time],

Yes, man was created in the Image of God, and to answer your 'How Come God Is A Spirit And Yet Has The Image Of Man' question. It is because something like that is not an impossible thing for God to do

When a portrait of you is drawn by an artist or painter on a canvas, in which way would you say, the image drawn and as seen on the canvas, looks like you

Deuteronomy 4:15-19
'15“So pay attention and watch yourselves carefully--for you did not see any form [of God] on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire--
16so that you do not act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved or sculpted image [to worship] in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, or of any winged bird that flies in the sky,
18the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, or of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth.
19And beware that you do not raise your eyes toward heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and let yourselves be led astray and worship them and serve them, [mere created bodies] which the LORD your God has allotted to [serve and benefit] all the peoples under the whole heaven'

John 4:24
'God is spirit [the Source of life, yet invisible to mankind],
and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”'

Exodus 33:20
'But He added,
“You cannot see My face, for humans cannot see Me and live.”'

There is no contradiction, keep reading on for the creative workaround that solves this seemingly problem, obstacle, restriction, limitation etc

God is not just only a Spirit, that is not made at all, as He is the Maker, but God is incorporeal, meaning, God has no physical body, whereas man, taking into consideration the fact that man is tripartite, is made up with, a soul, spirit and body, as created by the Maker, God.

Unlike the body, that is physical, the soul and spirit, are not physical. The soul and spirit constitute an immaterial part of a whole person or being, whether human or animal.

Now dwelling further on man, the soul, is the animate life, and actually, is that humanity side of man, the seat, where our emotions, senses, desires, affections, appetites, character etc all emanates out from.

In fact, the word, soul, even is used to refer to the whole person, whether alive on earth (i.e. land of the living) and/or after dead and transited in the afterlife (i.e. land of dead)

Wrapping up, the soul is the essence of what a human being is. The soul, is you, it is who you are. No surprises then, that, it is the soul that faces judgment, not the spirit and neither, not the body that stands before God, to give account for all the thoughts, deeds, words and actions did while the soul and spirit were housed in the body.

Focusing on the spirit, the spirit actually and appropriately, is ruach, otherwise known as, the breath of God, and in reality, also known as, life force. Now, at this juncture, it is necessary, to note that, though humans and animals have spirit, (i.e. ruach, otherwise known as, the breath of God, and in reality, also known as, life force) they however are not spirits nor Spirit (i.e. God)

The spirit (i.e. ruach, otherwise known as, the breath of God, and in reality, also known as, life force) in relation to humans, is the element in humanity that gives us the ability to have, not just only a connection with God, but also used to form an intimate relationship with God through it. Essentially, meaning that, part of what the spirit is used for, is to connect to God with, who Himself is Spirit, the Life-force, and giver of ruach, otherwise known as, the wind or breath of God

When the soul is the seat, where our emotions, senses, desires, affections, appetites, character etc all emanates out from, Proverbs 20:27, lets us know that, the spirit of man (i.e. talking of conscience here, and where as it happens, conscience, is one of the faculties of the spirit), is the lamp of the LORD, searching and examining all the innermost parts of his being, while 1 Corinthians 2:11, complementing, says, no one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. You see, the spirit, doubles up also as a witness. It knows everything about the person, and this because of the 'record' it logs

While the soul has four faculties, which namely are: Consciousness, Intellect, Will and Emotions, now, as for the spirit, aside Conscience, the other faculties of the spirit, are Fellowship and Discernment or Intuition. It is when man’s spirit successfully connects to or connects with the Spirit, that it is becomes capable of knowing things of the Spirit (i.e. God). While the soul, is the humanity side of man, the seat, where our emotions, senses, desires, affections, appetites, character etc all emanates out from, even giving us a purpose and/or sense of life, the spirit, on the other hand, is the temple throne seat of God in man, it not only is, the nourisher of soul, but it also gives us a power of life, from tuning into the God frequency channel or station and receiving transmitted spiritual signals thereof. Somebody, shout, Alleluia.

Physical pain, can with medicine, be made less severe, but mental pain (e.g. sorrow, grief, torment, despair, anguish, depression, dementia etc) is less accessible to treatment. Why is this? It's because of being connected to who we are - our personality, our character, our soul. Try and connect the dots, in the the parable of Lazarus and the dead rich man

Yes, the soul and the spirit are connected, yet we know, courtesy of Hebrews 4:12, that, they are able to be separated and are treated separately

In summary, the spirit, is the spark of light, the living or life force in the body, while the soul is kind of interface between spirit and body

The body dies (i.e. physically), it is because the spirit (i.e. life or living force) has expired, so the spirit stops existing in the body, from leaving the body and returning back to God, while the soul leaves the body, and moves on to a waiting area, pending the Judgment Day and verdict of where the last destination of the soul, will be. The body, after the exit of the spirit, experiences physical death, disintegrates, to end up, returning back, to being dust.

1 Timothy 6:16
He alone can never die,
and He lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach Him.
No human eye has ever seen Him, nor ever will.
All honor and power to Him forever! Amen.

Aside from, the underlined telling, in Deuteronomy 4:15, John 4:24 and Exodus 33:201 above, we also see in Timothy 6:16, that apart from God, alone possessing or having immortality (i.e. absolute exemption from death), we see that because of the fact that He lives in unapproachable light, no human being has ever seen or can see Him.

Now, if no one has seen God, nor can see God, then how possibly can God be seen, if at all, He can be physically seen then? Well, the only way to answer this seemingly confusing question and difficult problem is, by giving an answer that goes like this: the only way to physically see God, is through Jesus, who is God Incarnate, meaning God in human flesh, God personified, so meaning that, God presents Himself available to be seen, the way that Jesus in physical appearance looks

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

NNTR:
Sir, there loads of answered question(s) in what you cynically call long note

I went far, above and beyond answering the question

Do you take it, as an impossible thing, for God to do, that is, be, God the Father and Son at the same time?

I dont believe this is a wise request to grant you, being that, the explanation will require a long note with content, that you'll struggle to fully understand or completely absorb

I never typed, you saying God isnt a Spirit. Please note the capitalisation, making a distinction between Spirit and spirit, loll

The difference, that you always dont see, is that your spirit, is not you, but rather, your soul, is you and vice versa.

Both the soul and spirit are gifts. Only that the gift of the soul is yours to keep, whereas, the gift of the spirit, is not yours to keep, because when all is done and dusted, the spirit returns back to its owner, God

The spirit (i.e. ruach) breathed into you, is what triggers your first heat beat that brought you alive. You remain alive, for as long as the ruach remains in your body and let your heart continue beating. Remember that, ruach, is otherwise known as, the breath of God, and in reality, also known as, living or life force.

Coming from a principle point, I dont do arguments, so my apologies for not arguing with you.

The invisibility of God, is a biblically widely known fact, that even Deuteronomy 4:15, John 4:24, Exodus 33:201 and Timothy 6:16, helps us understand fully well about, but when saying 'no human being has seen or can see God' it doesnt mean, no one has seen God or cant see God, in other forms as the Angel of the Lord, the bush on flames but not burning, the pillars of fire and cloud in the wilderness or various other appearances not mentioned, but none of those experienced sighting of God, are the full revelation of God.

Genesis 1:26-27
"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.
²⁷So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them"

Aside black, red, as the colour, is one of my favourite colour, as it conveys, an imagery and air of love, romance, boldness, courage, chutzpah, danger, thrill etc for me and also because blood most of the time, is red, loll.

Now, when the bible, as seen in Genesis 1:26-27 above, says: 'Let Us make man, in Our image, after Our likeness', it is conveying a message that, we, human beings, are to be a physical image representation of different attributes of God. Now God is incorporeal, but He created us human beings, to physically project the different aspect and different visual imagery and likeness of the Godhead.

Image is instant, while likeness is continuum. The latter, is evident in Genesis 1:27, as seen above. Notice that the mention of "likeness" is left unsaid, in Genesis 1:27. Why? It is because, while image is instant, likeness, on the other hand is continuum.

1. How Jesus is God and we are not, simply is because Jesus, is God and we are gods.
The presence or absence of the 'G' capitalisation is the defining moment for who is God and who isnt God.

2. How Jesus is not human and we are human, is not correct at all, because to start with, Jesus is, God Incarnate, meaning, God, in the person of Jesus, took on flesh, to become human, as a bottom line, result of that, Jesus has characteristics of divinity and humanity.

As for us, yes, we are human, with, work in progress, in view, characteristics of divinity. The Genesis 1:26 likeness, is continuum, just as I shared above earlier on this post.

Have you ever physically seen love, physically seen compassion, physically touched kindness, physically held favour, physically held goodness in your arms etc?

John 20:29
Jesus said to Thomas,
"You believe because you've seen Me.
Blessed are those who haven't seen Me but believe."

Many need to and want to see but do not see. Many need to hear and want to hear what you hear on this thread but do not hear it or dont understand any of what they have read. All what they see the posts as, are challenging long notes loll

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

---

---

---

TenQ:
I have no problem with using the mind and the soul synonymously.

Only that I feel that the mind is a little restrictive as it concentrates more on the intellect and less on emotion or will of a person.

budaatum:
I do have a problem using mind and soul synonymously because they are not synonyms at all. Nor does my soul feel my emotions for me. I feel my emotions myself!

DeepsightX:
Maybe "soul" is another word for "you."
Or "I" . . . or "me."

As TenQ has been suggesting.

... and TenQ is 110% absolutely right, in that, the soul, is you and vice versa

It is not a case of 'maybe "soul" is another word for "you." Or "I" . . . or "me"' but it is a case of, your soul, is you. You are soul. Soul are you. Yes, quintessentially speaking, soul is you. Your self, is your soul and vice versa, meaning your soul is yourself, its you.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:

---

---

---

---

---

... and TenQ 110% absolutely right, in that, the soul, is you and vice versa

It is not a case of 'maybe "soul" is another word for "you." Or "I" . . . or "me"' but it is a case of, your soul, is you. You are soul. Soul are you. Yes, quintessentially speaking, soul is you. Your self, is your soul and vice versa, meaning your soul is yourself, its you.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I think you have a deep insight into this. The principal US is our soul who technically is interfaced with our physical body and our spirit body. In the physical dimensions, our physical body is us. In the spiritual dimensions, our spirit body is us. But the real US either in the physical realm or the spiritual realm is our soul.

Thanks for this great analysis!

budaatum:


The totality of Buda is whatever buda has become at the exact moment that you enquire, and your own ability to see totalities instead of perhaps just the physical body or the soul.

At the moment, buda consists of arms and legs and kidney and spleen and lungs, and mind too, and so far as you are concerned, the words of buda that you read, and removing or replacing any one of them in particular will still be buda even if buda looses buda's mind or is rotting six feet deep, you will point to buda and say that is this particular totality of buda. At least depending on how narrow the focus is, of course.

We have a thread on here about replacing the parts of a ship, my Lord might remember.

My emphasis is about how much can be taken out of a man that such a man will no longer recognise himself as himself.

On the surface, it looks like everything on a man's body can be replaced except his brain and a man will still know his identity (even with all his physical senses taken off).

We can still stretch our imaginations by asking the question: how much of the brain can be removed that a man would still recognise his identity?

But, we know that the "real man" here is NOT the brain but something connected to his brain. I will call that "something" the Soul while Buda will call that "something" the mind.

One question which I would still like looked into is if it's conceivable for a machine to be capable of absurdity.

Diridiri you appear to have retired, but I would have liked to hear you on this question.

DeepSight:
One question which I would still like looked into is if it's conceivable for a machine to be capable of absurdity.

Diridiri you appear to have retired, but I would have liked to hear you on this question.

Affirmative all machines are capable of absurdity

Faulty or exposed live wiring in an iron will give you nasty shock if used or touched

A runaway 18 wheeler articulated juggernaut will turn rogue because at least of failed hydraulic brakes.
In software, we say, GIGO
I think with all this talk of AI, its the nurse in the back of the mind, fear of a potential mass AI revolt, loll

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

TenQ:
??
Sorry to have wasted my time with you

If you don't understand how the simple computer functions, how can you understand how the soul and body interacts?

killyaselfie:
Lol, explain how a soul is similar to software.
I’m not consulting Google either.
You are the computer expert here

In a simplest form, both are abstract
The mind is in the soul, just as the algorithm is in the software, loll

The software is housed in a hardware, while the soul is housed in a human body.
The software interacts with various parts of the hardware, while the soul, does similar, it interacts with the body and the spirit man

The software that this platform is coded from is bespoke. Yes, it first used PHP, before Python, so you can call the platform software as mainly Python, just as you can be called 'killyaselfie'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:


In a simplest form, both are abstract
The mind is in the soul, just as the algorithm is in the software, loll

The software is housed in a hardware, while the soul is housed in a human body.
The software interacts with various parts of the hardware, while the soul, does similar, it interacts with the body and the spirit man

The software that this platform is coded from is bespoke. Yes, it first used PHP, before Python, so you can call the platform software as mainly Python, just as you can be called 'killyaselfie'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

2Cor 4:4:
"In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them."

budaatum:


If buda generalises from my postulates of TenQ based on so little then I buda must love being ignorant because it is far too insufficient knowledge for me to claim to know you, TenQ. I mean. Our discussion so far is an introduction to so many conversations we might have over so many years during which I know I'll learn so much more about TenQ, so perhaps my consciousness of my current ignorance about TenQ gets in the way of the hubris of delving into TenQ's soul.

Please know that if buda adopts the above attitude to knowing [about] TenQ to that used to knowing about souls or anything at all, then buda is a lazy ignorant fuq who has not bothered to ask and knock and seek with all her heart and soul and mind and being and entire existence.

Hmn!
I think you speak so much of Asking, Seeking and Knocking without actually knowing
1. Where to Ask
2. Who to Ask
3. Where to Seek
4. Where to Knock
5. What to Knock
To know much about TenQ, the best person to ask is TenQ. To ask TenQ anything, you must know where to find TenQ. How you ask TenQ the question may open or lock the door of this knowledge to you. Even when TenQ locks this door of required information from you, how you knock may get you the information.

To Ask, Seek or Knock is not difficult. The question is do you know the where, what, how, when and who Asking, Seeking and Knocking should be directed at?

For specifically on the question of the Mind/Soul/Body relationship, where, what, when, who are you to Ask, Seek and Knock?

For me, I always start from the known to glean knowledge required for the unknown. I know quite a few about the computer, it explains so much of the observations I see with the soul and body of man.

DeepSight:
One question which I would still like looked into is if it's conceivable for a machine to be capable of absurdity.

Diridiri you appear to have retired, but I would have liked to hear you on this question.

You may need to define what you mean by absurdity?

A red circle is sensible and possible
BUT
A square circle is an absurdity

NNTR:


In a simplest form, both are abstract
The mind is in the soul, just as the algorithm is in the software, loll

The software is housed in a hardware, while the soul is housed in a human body.
The software interacts with various parts of the hardware, while the soul, does similar, it interacts with the body and the spirit man

The software that this platform is coded from is bespoke. Yes, it first used PHP, before Python, so you can call the platform software as mainly Python, just as you can be called 'killyaselfie'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

The Guqizsn aura saturates the Otion just like electricity. The essence of the Zalunn is then encased in the Otion before connection to the Raka booty.

The Raka booty is then immaterially immersed in the physical body where it controls the heart, liver, and kidneys.

The Otion then converts into esoteric language and interfaces with the brain in the form of neurons and neurotransmitters.

Of course, these are all abstraction of the divine wheel of necessity.

TenQ:

Hmn!
I think you speak so much of Asking, Seeking and Knocking without actually knowing
1. Where to Ask
2. Who to Ask
3. Where to Seek
4. Where to Knock
5. What to Knock

You presume, TenQ.

In the school of ask, seek, knock, lesson one is the learning of the tools called what, why, when how, where and who, and their uses. Another word for it is Science, or how to use the senses.

‘I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I know
Their names are WHAT and WHY and WHEN and HOW and WHERE and WHO’
From ‘Just So Stories’ by Rudyard Kipling

It is for this reason we do not live by bread alone least we become malnourished. A fruit forbidden stands no chance wherever it might be hidden.

TenQ:

To know much about TenQ, the best person to ask is TenQ. To ask TenQ anything, you must know where to find TenQ. How you ask TenQ the question may open or lock the door of this knowledge to you. Even when TenQ locks this door of required information from you, how you knock may get you the information.

That depends all on what I want to know about TenQ, and what concerns me now is only how TenQ reasons, which I can learn by reading TenQ's words, for they are the fruits TenQ lays before me.

TenQ:
To Ask, Seek or Knock is not difficult. The question is do you know the where, what, how, when and who Asking, Seeking and Knocking should be directed at?

Actually, to ask and seek and knock, is the most impossible thing for some to do especially for those who have been taught to believe they have already found.

As for where, In the beginning was the Word, so we start with reading, or rather, learning to read, and to understand what we read.

TenQ:
For specifically on the question of the Mind/Soul/Body relationship, where, what, when, who are you to Ask, Seek and Knock?

You start by reading up on what has been written on the topic from before Plato up until today. Then you read up on contemporary thought on the subject and in other fields where it comes up, like in psychology, mythology, philosophy, history, archeology, creative writing, science, etc., and then you apply your own mind to all you've learnt so you understand it, after which you may come to a determination or not.

TenQ:
For me, I always start from the known to glean knowledge required for the unknown.

I often start from the unknown. When I pick up a book to read, it's content is unknown to me, and to know is why I read it. That way, I don't just end up only reading what confirms what I might have already known, and I learn things I did not know.

I'm currently reading Dirty Old London by Lee Jackson to learn how the Victorians won the battle against filth so I might learn how the same tools might be used to fight filth in Nigeria because I don't already know.

TenQ:
I know quite a few about the computer, it explains so much of the observations I see with the soul and body of man.

To those who's only tool is a hammer, everything seems like a nail.

TenQ:

2Cor 4:4:
"In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them."

You perpetually benighted devotees of silly mythologies are the only blind ones. The whole world bears witness to the ignorance of the overtly religious and superstitious Africans, on the continent and in the diaspora.

What worthless christ? What worthless god?

killyaselfie:


You perpetually benighted devotees of silly mythologies are the only blind ones. The whole world bears witness to the ignorance of the overtly religious and superstitious Africans, on the continent and in the diaspora.

What worthless christ? What worthless god?

??

budaatum:


You presume, TenQ.

In the school of ask, seek, knock, lesson one is the learning of the tools called what, why, when how, where and who, and their uses. Another word for it is Science, or how to use the senses.

‘I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I know
Their names are WHAT and WHY and WHEN and HOW and WHERE and WHO’
From ‘Just So Stories’ by Rudyard Kipling

It is for this reason we do not live by bread alone least we become malnourished. A fruit forbidden stands no chance wherever it might be hidden.


That depends all on what I want to know about TenQ, and what concerns me now is only how TenQ reasons, which I can learn by reading TenQ's words, for they are the fruits TenQ lays before me.


Actually, to ask and seek and knock, is the most impossible thing for some to do especially for those who have been taught to believe they have already found.

As for where, In the beginning was the Word, so we start with reading, or rather, learning to read, and to understand what we read.


You start by reading up on what has been written on the topic from before Plato up until today. Then you read up on contemporary thought on the subject and in other fields where it comes up, like in psychology, mythology, philosophy, history, archeology, creative writing, science, etc., and then you apply your own mind to all you've learnt so you understand it, after which you may come to a determination or not.


I often start from the unknown. When I pick up a book to read, it's content is unknown to me, and to know is why I read it. That way, I don't just end up only reading what confirms what I might have already known, and I learn things I did not know.

I'm currently reading Dirty Old London by Lee Jackson to learn how the Victorians won the battle against filth so I might learn how the same tools might be used to fight filth in Nigeria because I don't already know.


To those who's only tool is a hammer, everything seems like a nail.

I wish you concentrated on the mind/soul/body relationship. What have you learnt?

NNTR:
Affirmative all machines are capable of absurdity

Faulty or exposed live wiring in an iron will give you nasty shock if used or touched

A runaway 18 wheeler articulated juggernaut will turn rogue because at least of failed hydraulic brakes.
In software, we say, GIGO
I think with all this talk of AI, its the nurse in the back of the mind, fear of a potential mass AI revolt, loll

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I did not mean malfunctions. I will explain what I meant in my next post to TenQ.

TenQ:

I wish you concentrated on the mind/soul/body relationship. What have you learnt?

I've learnt some want to split themselves and others into separate components instead of seeing the whole person, and that I should focus on the persons I see before me instead of their souls that I most definitely see not.

TenQ:

You may need to define what you mean by absurdity?

A red circle is sensible and possible
BUT
A square circle is an absurdity

So what I mean is with respect to robots, machine intelligence, AI - and the contention by some that it is conceivable for a machine to attain self-consciousness. I pointed out previously that humans are very complex beings who are even capable of absurdity - and by this I mean self contradiction, self negation and even self destruction. This is aside from all manner of absurd and even inexplicable patterns of behavior. My view and understanding is that they are capable of this because of the fact that they possess what I would call living-root-consciousness - in other words they are conscious beings at their core and so for instance can make one decision one moment and flip that decision on a hunch, impulse, intuition or "weird" feeling of any kind the very next instant. They can love and hate someone else at the same time. They can proceed on lines of action clearly detrimental to their own well being. They can sacrifice themselves for others or for a cause. They are capable of altruism and they can commit suicide. They are thus capable of a spectacular spectrum of varied absurdities.

The question is whether a machine could conceivably be capable of the like of such. Because it appears to me that being preprogrammed, nothing it does could be absurd in this sense. Even if it is programmed to self destruct, that is not absurd because that was what was intended in its program. By definition, it thus lacks the capacity to be absurd - and closely allied to this question is what I said about impulse and intuition and the like. There is quite enough in my view to shoot down the idea that machines can be self-conscious, and it's sadly disappointing to see the escapist responses delivered in this thread in that regard.

budaatum:


I've learnt some want to split themselves and others into separate components instead of seeing the whole person, and that I should focus on the persons I see before me instead of their souls that I most definitely see not.

We are all invisible.