LordReed:


LoL see why I said you misunderstand. It is you who is claiming the mind can be independent of the body not me. You are the ones who believe in concepts such as soul and an afterlife.

Sorry, I have updated the response.


You were the one who says that the mind cannot be independent of the body



I have given you a parallel between the mind and the programmings of a computer and thus I asked the question

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

The answer is YES!

You said NO it can't but you are wrong.
A Computer Program is a Sequence of Instructions, Directives and Information which of course first exist in the MIND of the programmer, then it gets put on PAPER before it is TYPED in a Text Editor. From the Text Editor it is Compiled into machine language after which it is loaded into a computer.

The sequence of instruction is the real computer programs: several different mediums can be used to record it. It just happens that the last media is the HDD, CPU, RAM of the computer.

So, how different is a paper and a HDD in the storage of the computer program?

TenQ:

Sorry, I have updated the response.


You were the one who says that the mind cannot be independent of the body



I have given you a parallel between the mind and the programmings of a computer and thus I asked the question

Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

The answer is YES!

You said NO it can't but you are wrong.
A Computer Program is a Sequence of Instructions, Directives and Information which of course first exist in the MIND of the programmer, then it gets put on PAPER before it is TYPED in a Text Editor. From the Text Editor it is Compiled into machine language after which it is loaded into a computer.

The sequence of instruction is the real computer programs: several different mediums can be used to record it. It just happens that the last media is the HDD, CPU, RAM of the computer.

So, how different is a paper and a HDD in the storage of the computer program?

So if I write down my thoughts the paper has become my mind?

LordReed:

Nope. Land speed laws are not morality they are laws. Laws and morality often coincide but they are not the same thing.

Again no, these are laws put in place in society to establish order. Age limits differ from place to place so do the land speed limits. It is the society that determines what those limits should be based on their own societal demands. There is no singular source dictating what these limits should be.

Animals are not under obligation to follow our morality.

Never said they would.

Almost ALL laws are in place to establish ORDER!
Is embezzlement of government resources not also moral?

Laws are meant to GUIDE our behaviours.

However, it doesn't make a difference to the point. Is it logical to argue or dispute why the road speed limit is set at 100km/h and not 102km/h. Or why adult age is 18years old and not 15 years?

Why do you think that sex with a 17year old girl (in Nigeria) by an adult is immoral (rape)?

Your last argument/post is flawed sir!

killyaselfie:


Go to the nearest computer technician and ask them.

I wish you can at least show some level of objectivity by thinking.

You asked a question

TenQ:

Almost ALL laws are in place to establish ORDER!
Is embezzlement of government resources not also moral?

Laws are meant to GUIDE our behaviours.

However, it doesn't make a difference to the point. Is it logical to argue or dispute why the road speed limit is set at 100km/h and not 102km/h. Or why adult age is 18years old and not 15 years?

Why do you think that sex with a 17year old girl (in Nigeria) by an adult is immoral (rape)?

Your last argument/post is flawed sir!

Do even read and understand what you respond to or are just responding for responding sake. Did I say law wasn't for order or what are you implying?

It matters because there is no single objective source for what age limits are set. So when you tell me there is an objective source for morality the very facts on ground deny that.

TenQ:

I wish you can at least show some level of objectivity by thinking.

You asked a question

“Objectivity by thinking” coming from a Christian is a joke.

All you have to do is show what the soul is and where it’s located. You keep hammering on ignorantly about computers and asking needless questions.

killyaselfie:


“Objectivity by thinking” coming from a Christian is a joke.

All you have to do is show what the soul is and where it’s located. You keep hammering on ignorantly about computers and asking needless questions.

Exactly why cannot objectively answer a simple question relating to the computer. You could at least consult Google.

SMH!

LordReed:


Do even read and understand what you respond to or are just responding for responding sake. Did I say law wasn't for order or what are you implying?

It matters because there is no single objective source for what age limits are set. So when you tell me there is an objective source for morality the very facts on ground deny that.

It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable. Objective morality can be set both by God or a governing authority. Subjective morality can vary from one person to another as it is NOT absolute.
Objective morality does not stem from the fact that it can be logically justified. No! It simply means that it is a take it or leave it kind of law: absolute in nature.


When God says fornication is wrong, to those who believe in God's law, it is objective and there is no argument of justification.

Same as per when the government sets a legal age for sex, alcohol or even speed limit.

The problem atheists have is when Christians for instance speak about the source of an objective law of morality as God but take for granted that objective law of morality can also be set by Governments.

Like is it moral for me as a store owner to sell cigarettes and alcohol to a primary school pupil?

TenQ:

Exactly why cannot objectively answer a simple question relating to the computer. You could at least consult Google.

SMH!

The issue is about the definition of a soul, not computers. You were asked about the nature or composition of a soul along with its location but you start asking about HDD, CPU,GPU and then claim someone can’t ”objectively answer a simple question”. That person be you.

You’re the one with the analogy that doesn’t make sense and instead of explaining what a soul is you keep talking about software.

Why don’t you consult google then come back and explain the soul. Not comouter software but soul.


This is not a conversation with your fellow Christians or other religious types where you assume nonsense, make unfounded claims, and nod in agreement with each other

LordReed:


So if I write down my thoughts the paper has become my mind?

I never suggested that.

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

The equivalent is: can the soul exist outside the body?

LordReed:


LoL see why I said you misunderstand. It is you who is claiming the mind can be independent of the body not me. You are the ones who believe in concepts such as soul and an afterlife.

And we have shown the equivalence between the soul and the computer program that acts on the hardware!

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

TenQ:

And we have shown the equivalence between the soul and the computer program that acts on the hardware!

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

Christ fucking Jesus, you haven’t shown any equivalence of anything!!

killyaselfie:


The issue is about the definition of a soul, not computers. You were asked about the nature or composition of a soul along with its location but you start asking about HDD, CPU,GPU and then claim someone can’t ”objectively answer a simple question”. That person be you.

You’re the one with the analogy that doesn’t make sense and instead of explaining what a soul is you keep talking about software.

Why don’t you consult google then come back and explain the soul. Not comouter software but soul.


This is not a conversation with your fellow Christians or other religious types where you assume nonsense, make unfounded claims, and nod in agreement with each other

If you can just slow down to think. Tantrums don't change anything.

If you can understand the relationship between the computer program and the computer hardware, then you will understand the relationship between the soul and the body.

But when you choose not to purse knowledge and understanding, too bad: you can't be helped.

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

killyaselfie:


Christ fucking Jesus, you haven’t shown any equivalence of anything!!

??
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?

TenQ:

If you can just slow down to think. Tantrums don't change anything.

If you can understand the relationship between the computer program and the computer hardware, then you will understand the relationship between the soul and the body.

But when you choose not to purse knowledge and understanding, too bad: you can't be helped.

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

What a joke. You keep insisting that lines of instructions known as software is similar to the soul. Fine, show us in the body where this soul of yours
Your bumptious ignorance is nauseating but please, go ahead and explain how a “simple computer’s” function is just like the human body.

Since you are a computer expert, don’t ask questions about CPU, GPU, etc but explain what a soul is, where it is, and how it drives bodily function and how it’s analogous to computer software.

Ok, Einstein?

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?

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

TenQ:


The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

Lol. What a jackass.

killyaselfie:


Lol. What a jackass.

Just see the reflection of your programming!?

TenQ:

You have never seen God, yet you know/believe He is!

Wrong, TenQ. buda has never seen God but understands what people mean by God.

TenQ:

In the scientific community, we have what is called a THEORY!

A theory attempts to explain the unknown by what is known.

Last time I checked, a theory based on insufficient information is not presented as fact, but as a start point for seeking facts, unlike you who present a generalisation based on insufficient information as fact.

TenQ:

No one has be able to cut open a body and bring out the mind/soul. Meaning that until that happens, every understanding about the mind/soul will be just a THEORY!

When scientists discuss how the universe began, they state that that is as far as they can determine, and they are open to new discoveries. You TenQ, however, present generalisations based on insufficient evidence as facts.

I have not read your responses to others, but I do expect the scientists amongst them to disagree with you a lot on souls.

budaatum:


I have not read your responses to others, but I do expect the scientists amongst them to disagree with you a lot on souls.

I am not sure to what extent the question of souls is a matter of science at the physical level, at least not the science of today.

DeepsightX:


I am not sure to what extent the question of souls is a matter of science at the physical level, at least not the science of today.

Soul doesn't appear in science at all, as far as I know, so it was rather odd that TenQ wants to discuss it scientifically.

But I guess that's what those who generalise on insufficient information would do, thinking others might not know any better.

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.

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!

budaatum:

Wrong, TenQ. buda has never seen God but understands what people mean by God.


Last time I checked, a theory based on insufficient information is not presented as fact, but as a start point for seeking facts, unlike you who present a generalisation based on insufficient information as fact.


When scientists discuss how the universe began, they state that that is as far as they can determine, and they are open to new discoveries. You TenQ, however, present generalisations based on insufficient evidence as facts.

I have not read your responses to others, but I do expect the scientists amongst them to disagree with you a lot on souls.

Dou you have an opinion that there seem to be something akin to a software that drives the body of a living being?

killyaselfie:


Lol. What a jackass.

Of all the attributes which either scripture or conventional moral wisdom may recommend to a person, humility is one of the most underrated and yet, one of the most useful precepts in any kind of social interaction. While I am not a religious person and have not been throughout my adult life, I have come to understand that the scorn and disdain which many atheists or irreligious people reserve for the religious is something that the wise ones among them tend to do away with. This is for several reasons, but those which concern me here are -

(1) sitting on a grain of sand on a beach (to use your own words - an analogy I have oft used myself) we know so little about the universe in which we live (which itself may just be another grain of sand on a vaster beach and so on) - not to speak about reality as a whole. This alone should compel sufficient humility in all of us such that we restrain our more bombastic and arrogant tendencies with respect to the market place of ideas. I say this as someone who has spent many years myself pouring massive scorn on religious people so do not think I am waxing sanctimonious or holier-than-thou here.

(2) Many times, as I hinted earlier, the scientific community itself has become so rigid and dogmatic in its approach to things, that it is not uncommon to find scientists spewing grievous nonsensicalities in a bid to destroy any conceivable notion of spirituality or the existence of a higher power or intelligence out there which may have anything to do with our existence on this planet. This is in itself ridiculous when one remembers that we sit on a grain of sand on a beach, but the sheer extreme dogmatism and vitriol deployed by the supposedly scientifically minded to destroy any idea related to the possibility of anything spiritual or even the idea that there could have been any consciousness behind the world as we know it, is too extreme in itself and thus anti-scientific. In this you find such people ready to make every manner of illogical pronouncement and most strangely - in doing this, because "science" is the the orthodoxy of the day, they peer down their noses arrogantly and smugly pitying everyone else who they consider ignorant and deluded.

I have written this specially for you sir, because I can only smile when I read you describing someone else as "a jackass" up there, after you have, on this same thread, insisted that thoughts are matter, that they have mass and occupy space, and that evidence of this is that if you write a thought down on a sheet of paper, voila, that's a thought with mass and occupying space. I dont know with what words this sort of insistence on denial of the obvious may be described, but I can only tell you that once I recognized the length you were prepared to go to, I had no choice but to quietly withdraw because it is something I am all too familiar with. What you presented has no words by which it may be described, but believe me, there is nothing new under the sun.

I therefore simply wish to recommend to you a little humility. I dont think that gentleman you called a jackass has been rude to you even if you both disagree.

budaatum:


Nor does my soul feel my emotions for me. I feel my emotions myself!

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

As TenQ has been suggesting.

TenQ:

And we have shown the equivalence between the soul and the computer program that acts on the hardware!

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

Good grief man!

LordReed:

You keep asking the same question that has been answered and does not provide any answer to question asked. No it can't, now can you stop asking this question and answer the one I asked you.

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!

Can you look at it this way:
If we agree that the person you call "I", "ME", "MYSELF" is truly you howbeit not the physical you.

Is this "You" you call (I, ME, MYSELF)
A. Your Brain?
B. Your Mind?
C. Your Soul?
D. Your Body?

Who experiences an emotion out of these four options?
If you are completely dismembered and surgically replaced, would you still remain you?

TenQ:

I never suggested that.

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

The equivalent is: can the soul exist outside the body?

Then why are you using the analogy? You are suggesting that the written code for software is the same as the actual program running in a machine. What is the point of the analogy really?

You said the soul is detachable so what does it mean to be detachable if not that it can survive outside the body?

TenQ:

This means that there isn't much difference in our understanding except that you'll prefer to use "the mind" as an inseparable fusion of the hardware and software, whereas, I prefer to use "the soul" as a detachable software from the hardware of the body. I hope I'm correct with this view.

And you are correct that the soul/mind cannot survive without its hardware.

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

DeepsightX:


Of all the attributes which either scripture or conventional moral wisdom may recommend to a person, humility is one of the most underrated and yet, one of the most useful precepts in any kind of social interaction. While I am not a religious person and have not been throughout my adult life, I have come to understand that the scorn and disdain which many atheists or irreligious people reserve for the religious is something that the wise ones among them tend to do away with. This is for several reasons, but those which concern me here are -

(1) sitting on a grain of sand on a beach (to use your own words - an analogy I have oft used myself) we know so little about the universe in which we live (which itself may just be another grain of sand on a vaster beach and so on) - not to speak about reality as a whole. This alone should compel sufficient humility in all of us such that we restrain our more bombastic and arrogant tendencies with respect to the market place of ideas. I say this as someone who has spent many years myself pouring massive scorn on religious people so do not think I am waxing sanctimonious or holier-than-thou here.

(2) Many times, as I hinted earlier, the scientific community itself has become so rigid and dogmatic in its approach to things, that it is not uncommon to find scientists spewing grievous nonsensicalities in a bid to destroy any conceivable notion of spirituality or the existence of a higher power or intelligence out there which may have anything to do with our existence on this planet. This is in itself ridiculous when one remembers that we sit on a grain of sand on a beach, but the sheer extreme dogmatism and vitriol deployed by the supposedly scientifically minded to destroy any idea related to the possibility of anything spiritual or even the idea that there could have been any consciousness behind the world as we know it, is too extreme in itself and thus anti-scientific. In this you find such people ready to make every manner of illogical pronouncement and most strangely - in doing this, because "science" is the the orthodoxy of the day, they peer down their noses arrogantly and smugly pitying everyone else who they consider ignorant and deluded.

I have written this specially for you sir, because I can only smile when I read you describing someone else as "a jackass" up there, after you have, on this same thread, insisted that thoughts are matter, that they have mass and occupy space, and that evidence of this is that if you write a thought down on a sheet of paper, voila, that's a thought with mass and occupying space. I dont know with what words this sort of insistence on denial of the obvious may be described, but I can only tell you that once I recognized the length you were prepared to go to, I had no choice but to quietly withdraw because it is something I am all too familiar with. What you presented has no words by which it may be described, but believe me, there is nothing new under the sun.

I therefore simply wish to recommend to you a little humility. I dont think that gentleman you called a jackass has been rude to you even if you both disagree.

You should have saved this nonsense and instead explained the “reality beyond the physical”. You defend nonsense because your ideas are nonsense. When called to explain, like the jackass you defend, you ask a thousand questions and refuse to explain.

killyaselfie:


You should have saved this nonsense and instead explain the “reality beyond the physical”. You defend nonsense because your ideas are nonsense. When called to explain, like the jackass you defend, you ask a thousand questions and refuse to explain.
Don’t worry about who I call jackass.

No worries amigo. I wish you well.

DeepsightX:


No worries amigo. I wish you well.

Whatever, boy.

LordReed:


Then why are you using the analogy? You are suggesting that the written code for software is the same as the actual program running in a machine. What is the point of the analogy really?

You said the soul is detachable so what does it mean to be detachable if not that it can survive outside the body?

A computer program is first a series of Instructions acting on data:
This program can be put on different media in forms suitable for the target recipient: thus
1. A program can be written in Human understandable form as TEXTS but it is still the program
The texts can be an Algorithm, Or High level Language Dialect Specific Form (C++, Pascal, BASIC, FORTRAN etc)
2. The same program can be written in a human understandable form but closer to the Machine form in terms of Assembly Language.
This is still a program but hardware ready
3. The same program can be Compiled or Interpreted into Machine Actionable Forms. At this point it is just simply sequences of ZEROs and ONEs.
4. The machine Actionable form (zeros and ones) are now stored in form of electric potentials, magnetic poles, charge differences etc

The question is can a program exist OUTSIDE the computer?
Of course!
Until the program becomes compiled into Zeros and Ones it isn't machine readable.

In a simple term:
A computer program can be translated into ANY suitable Language Dialect e.g. TEXTs, ALGORITHMs, High level language Specific Dialect, Assembly Language, Low Level Language Specific Form depending on the receptor of such sequence of instructions.

Can a computer program exist outside the Computer?
The answer is YES: but it must be written somewhere else.
This is the reason why we can clone a computer by MOVING ALL the DATA and PROGRAM into an external Storage device such that when the main computer crashes, it can be fully restored

With respect to the Soul existing without the body I said

TenQ:

1. For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist.
2. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body.
3. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.