Logicboy03:

You are seriously either crazy or deceitful.



So, your definition has become a binding law.


You have done nothing but argue illogically on this thread.


Afterall, it was what prompted this thread in the first place! Look at the topic!


Goodnight

Lol,My friend, if you are going to argue against my position, don't redefine it and then argue against your redefinition. That is all you lot have tried to do so far on this thread and when I won't let you get away with it, you resort to insults and mockery. Your poor attempts at argumentation only make me laugh.

As I have said many times; you won't recognize logic even if it kicked you in the head so when you call someone "illogical" it only makes me laugh.

Na wa o! Twin bro, the Lord blessed you with superabundant patience. It will continue to serve His Purpose.

Mr_Anony:
Lol,My friend, if you are going to argue against my position, don't redefine it and then argue against your redefinition. That is all you lot have tried to do so far on this thread and when I won't let you get away with it, you resort to insults and mockery. Your poor attempts at argumentation only make me laugh.

As I have said many times; you won't recognize logic even if it kicked you in the head so when you call someone "illogical" it only makes me laugh.

Anony's definition when asked about consciousness

Mr_Anony:
If by consciousness we are both referring to the soul then yes a man's soul is a supernatural being.

Dictionary definitions

a)con·scious·ness
/ˈkänCHəsnəs/
Noun
The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
The awareness or perception of something by a person


b)soul
/sōl/
Noun
The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
A person's[b] moral [/b]or emotional nature or sense of identity



I will leave it for others to judge

Logicboy03:



Anony's definition when asked about consciousness




Dictionary definitions

a)con·scious·ness
/ˈkänCHəsnəs/
Noun
The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
The awareness or perception of something by a person


b)soul
/sōl/
Noun
The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
A person's[b] moral [/b]or emotional nature or sense of identity



I will leave it for others to judge

Of course that's what happens when you jump into a conversation halfway. Here's what led to the question you are referring to.

Mr_Anony:
Not so, A computer/robot/machine can have thoughts but it's thoughts have no meaning. To have meaning, the computer will need to have a soul.

I believe that man unlike a robot has a soul/spirit/inner man (or perhaps what you may choose refer to as a man's consciousness) and that is who the man really is i.e his essence. This inner man has thoughts and ideas. As long as he is connected to a body, the man is alive. As soon as that connection is broken, the man is dead.

I don't think you would describe your "consciousness" as a ideology. I wouldn't.

It is really sad when you don't pay attention but you are more than happy to let your mouth run wild.

Mr_Anony:

Of course that's what happens when you jump into a conversation halfway. Here's what led to the question you are referring to.



It is really sad when you don't pay attention but you are more than happy to let your mouth run wild.

Is there any difference between your two quotes?

Both are defining soul as consciousness.


Jeez, you are becoming more and more illogical

@mr anony

Given your definition of supernatural, all consciousness and thoughts/ideas fit. Cos they aren't confined to space, etc.

And we can't conclude that a supernatural source is responsible for a natural world, cos the supernatural lacks a natural substance.

Logicboy03:



Is there any difference between your two quotes?

Both are defining soul as consciousness.


Jeez, you are becoming more and more illogical

Yawn....another reason why I can't be bothered explaining stuff to you. Sense is usually lost on you.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....another reason why I can't be bothered explaining stuff to you. Sense is usually lost on you.

Evading the facts?


Anyways, your apologist days are over
https://www.nairaland.com/1141128/anonys-christian-logic-terms-tragedy

Kay 17: @mr anony

Given your definition of supernatural, all consciousness and thoughts/ideas fit. Cos they aren't confined to space, etc.

I won't put it that way myself but if you insist.....

And we can't conclude that a supernatural source is responsible for a natural world, cos the supernatural lacks a natural substance.

I see no reason why this should be true. Why I say this is because it can be demonstrated that everything we know to be the natural world (all matter, space and time) began to exist at some point. Unless you want to hold that it was caused by nothing, you must have to accept that it's cause is something that transcends space, time and matter but is powerful enough to create it.

Logicboy03:


Evading the facts?


Anyways, your apologist days are over
https://www.nairaland.com/1141128/anonys-christian-logic-terms-tragedy

What facts?

Mr_Anony:
What facts?

Your definition ties consciousnesses to the soul

a) Consciousness is independent of the brain

b) The soul doesnt even exist as far as science is concerned

Logicboy03:



Your definition ties consciousnesses to the soul

a) Consciousness is independent of the brain

b) The soul doesnt even exist as far as science is concerned

a) Strawman again. I gave Kay 17 the word "consciousness" as a synonym to what I would describe as a soul. Obviously I am using the word "consciousness" here to denote personhood and not merely the awareness of one's physical environment.
I did not "eject consciousness from the brain and tie it to the soul" as you seem to be trying to suggest rather used it as a synonym to help illustrate what I mean by a soul to Kay 17.

b)Similarly science cannot explain love, or inner peace, or joy or good and evil or the semiotic meaning of the words "boiled yam" or anything at all for which the question is Why? (about reason) instead of How? (about mechanism).
It would be silly to assume that because scientific method cannot give an answer to a certain phenomena, therefore it doesn't exist.

Mr_Anony:

a) Strawman again. I gave Kay 17 the word "consciousness" as a synonym to what I would describe as a soul. Obviously I am using the word "consciousness" here to denote personhood and not merely the awareness of one's physical environment.
I did not "eject consciousness from the brain and tie it to the soul" as you seem to be trying to suggest rather used it as a synonym to help illustrate what I mean by a soul to Kay 17.

b)Similarly science cannot explain love, or inner peace, or joy or good and evil or the semiotic meaning of the words "boiled yam" or anything at all for which the question is Why? (about reason) instead of How? (about mechanism).
It would be silly to assume that because scientific method cannot give an answer to a certain phenomena, therefore it doesn't exist.

a) I made a slip of the tongue. A mistake. Whjat I meant to say was that consciousness is independent of the soul

b) That is a lie. Science can explain love, joy, good etc. You just made an argument from ignorance. This is how yo went to say that steel does not naturally float out of ignorance. Furthermore, I hope you realise that semiotics is steeped in science as well

Logicboy03:
a) I made a slip of the tongue. A mistake. Whjat I meant to say was that consciousness is independent of the soul

Now that's weird how can you say that consciousness is tied to the soul and yet independent of the soul?

Logicboy03: b) That is a lie. Science can explain love, joy, good etc. You just made an argument from ignorance. This is how yo went to say that steel does not naturally float out of ignorance. Furthermore, I hope you realise that semiotics is steeped in science as well

Lol, really? This is gonna be interesting.

Could you please explain scientifically the semiotic meaning of the phrase "boiled yam". How exactly would you go about scientifically evaluating the symbols: b, o, i, l, e, d, y, a, m.
How do you scientifically distinguish the value when the symbols are arranged in another form like "made by oil".

Provide your scientific calculations to prove whether the symbols a, b, e, o, l, y, m, i, and d when arranged as "made by oil" has a different value or is the same value as "boiled yam".

Also tell us which value is greater between the two arrangements by a detailed scientific analysis citing the scientific laws guiding the arrangements of the symbols.

Mr_Anony:
Now that's weird how can you say that consciousness is tied to the soul and yet independent of the soul?

How dubious of you. I dont believe in the soul and how could I have said that consciousness is tied to the soul? Putting words in my mouth?

Consciousness is independent of the soul. Yes or no?


You claimed that counsciousness is tied to the soul, not me and I am tellng you that you are wrong; consicouness is independent of the soul

Mr_Anony:
Lol, really? This is gonna be interesting.

Could you please explain scientifically the semiotic meaning of the phrase "boiled yam". How exactly would you go about scientifically evaluating the symbols: b, o, i, l, e, d, y, a, m.
How do you scientifically distinguish the value when the symbols are arranged in another form like "made by oil".

Provide your scientific calculations to prove whether the symbols a, b, e, o, l, y, m, i, and d when arranged as "made by oil" has a different value or is the same value as "boiled yam".

Also tell us which value is greater between the two arrangements by a detailed scientific analysis citing the scientific laws guiding the arrangements of the symbols.

I like how you ignored the fact that you were wrong about science explaining love and joy and other human emotions. Now you want to focus on semiotics because you think you can wiggle.

Your knowledge of semitiotics is reductionist. You have reduced semitiotcs to language or linguistics out of ignorance, hence your narrow minded question.


You should read more on the semiotics of food.

In the area of nutrition and its associated fields there is substantial scope for semiotic analysis. The combination of flavour and expectation, or the displacement of the one by the other; the reception of flavour by the eater, and the effect these have on one another; in this way taste can be seen to stimulate the processes of signifiation at the centre of a complex set of relations. Semiotics is at the centre of these processes, despite the fact that food-related studies, and the treatment of taste as a semiotic object (Floch 1995), represent a new domain in semiotics

You should really read more about science before talking nonsense.

Cognitive Semiotics is combinding methods and theories developed in the disciplines of cognitive methods and theories developed in semiotics and the humanities, with providing new information into human signification and its manifestation in cultural practices. [11] The research on cognitive semiotics researcher brings together semiotics from linguistics, cognitive science, and related disciplines on a common meta-theoretical platform of concepts, methods, and shared data.

Logicboy03:
How dubious of you. I dont believe in the soul and how could I have said that consciousness is tied to the soul? Putting words in my mouth?

Consciousness is independent of the soul. Yes or no?

You claimed that counsciousness is tied to the soul, not me and I am tellng you that you are wrong; consicouness is independent of the soul

Perhaps you should read the (a) part of that my reply once again.

I like how you ignored the fact that you were wrong about science explaining love and joy and other human emotions. Now you want to focus on semiotics because you think you can wiggle.

Your knowledge of semitiotics is reductionist. You have reduced semitiotcs to language or linguistics out of ignorance, hence your narrow minded question.

You should read more on the semiotics of food.

You should really read more about science before talking nonsense.

Perhaps you should read the (b) part of my post again. And pay more attention.

What exactly did you think I was asking when I said:

science cannot explain . . . . . . the semiotic meaning of the words "boiled yam"

If only you paid a bit more attention instead of hastily responding, perhaps you won't do so badly at argumentation.

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps you should read the (a) part of that my reply once again.







Perhaps you should read the (b) part of my post again. And pay more attention.

What exactly did you think I was asking when I said:

If only you paid a bit more attention instead of hastily responding, perhaps you won't do so badly at argumentation.

Yawn. I see that you are trying to shift away from the argument. Is consciousness independent on the soul?





You didnt ask for the semiotics of boiled yam. You asked for the meaning of the semiotics of boiled yam. How stupid. What is the meaning of boiled yam, not to even talk about the semiotic meaning. Mtchew. Keep framing nonsense questions

Mr_Anony:
I won't put it that way myself but if you insist.....


I see no reason why this should be true. Why I say this is because it can be demonstrated that everything we know to be the natural world (all matter, space and time) began to exist at some point. Unless you want to hold that it was caused by nothing, you must have to accept that it's cause is something that transcends space, time and matter but is powerful enough to create it.

A classical logic lesson is you can't give what you don't have. Except the natural is part of the supernatural, it can't invariably produce a natural world. A transcendental world is theorized to exist for the sake of the natural world, if we can't find a common substance between the two, it becomes unreasonable for a transcendental world to continue to exist.

What about our purported experiences of the supernatural? Like miracles.

Also, there is no reason to limit the Nature to physical boundaries. One can say without contradiction that human consciousness is very much natural.

Logicboy03:
Yawn. I see that you are trying to shift away from the argument. Is consciousness independent on the soul?
You didnt ask for the semiotics of boiled yam. You asked for the meaning of the semiotics of boiled yam. How stupid. What is the meaning of boiled yam, not to even talk about the semiotic meaning. Mtchew. Keep framing nonsense questions

Lol, interesting how any question you find difficult automatically becomes a rubbish question. Anyway, my point has been made. There are things science cannot explain.

Kay 17:
A classical logic lesson is you can't give what you don't have. Except the natural is part of the supernatural, it can't invariably produce a natural world. A transcendental world is theorized to exist for the sake of the natural world, if we can't find a common substance between the two, it becomes unreasonable for a transcendental world to continue to exist.

I don't think the "you can't give what you don't have" applies here. I consider the supernatural to be that aspect of reality we cannot explain with natural phenomena. It is more like the natural is a subset of the supernatural and not a separate set entirely

What about our purported experiences of the supernatural? Like miracles.

What about them?

Also, there is no reason to limit the Nature to physical boundaries. One can say without contradiction that human consciousness is very much natural.

Interesting because I have been arguing that the physical and the spiritual correspond directly to the natural and the supernatural but here you are effectively saying that both the spiritual and the physical are natural. If what you describe as natural encompasses the two phenomena I describe as supernatural and natural, then we really have no argument.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interesting how any question you find difficult automatically becomes a rubbish question. Anyway, my point has been made. There are things science cannot explain.

of course, like Anony's deceit

@mr anony

From the recent examples brought out, like ideas which are physcially restricted to space and time are well understood despite being supernatural. And given that same example ideas lack physicality. Hence natural can't be a subset of the supernatural.

Miracles touch on natural and logical impossibilities brought to life. A dead man resurrecting.

Logicboy03:
of course, like Anony's deceit

Yawn....as usual you have no point so you make it personal.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....as usual you have no point so you make it personal.

LOLZ........You have no points

Kay 17: @mr anony

From the recent examples brought out, like ideas which are physcially restricted to space and time are well understood despite being supernatural. And given that same example ideas lack physicality. Hence natural can't be a subset of the supernatural.

I don't quite remember classifying ideas as supernatural but that's by the way, more to the point: We both agree that there are aspects of reality that lack physicality. I hold that that a spaceless timeless immaterial realm must transcend a spacebound timebound material realm because it is not limited by the same boundaries and for that reason, the physical realm must be in a sense encompassed by the spiritual realm.
Secondly, the physical is always directly connected with the non-physical so I see no reason why they would be regarded as two separate sets instead of a set within another especially since one set is limited in all the ways the other set isn't.

Miracles touch on natural and logical impossibilities brought to life. A dead man resurrecting.

Some examples of logical impossibilities would be a square circle, or a rectangle with 3 sides or a married bachelor. I don't think a dead man coming to life is a logical impossibility in the same sense because it is essentially a change from one state of being to another.
At best you may call it an event outside your experience in the same way that instant communication between two continents via phone is outside the experience of a man in the 6th century BC. He may even call it a natural impossibility if you told him about it, but it is in no way a logical impossibility.

Logicboy03:

LOLZ........You have no points

smh

Mr_Anony:
I don't quite remember classifying ideas as supernatural but that's by the way, more to the point: We both agree that there are aspects of reality that lack physicality. I hold that that a spaceless timeless immaterial realm must transcend a spacebound timebound material realm because it is not limited by the same boundaries and for that reason, the physical realm must be in a sense encompassed by the spiritual realm.
Secondly, the physical is always directly connected with the non-physical so I see no reason why they would be regarded as two separate sets instead of a set within another especially since one set is limited in all the ways the other set isn't.


Some examples of logical impossibilities would be a square circle, or a rectangle with 3 sides or a married bachelor. I don't think a dead man coming to life is a logical impossibility in the same sense because it is essentially a change from one state of being to another.
At best you may call it an event outside your experience in the same way that instant communication between two continents via phone is outside the experience of a man in the 6th century BC. He may even call it a natural impossibility if you told him about it, but it is in no way a logical impossibility.

We do agree that there is a non physical aspect of reality, namely abstract. But you at a point insisted that ideas for lacking physical restraints was supernatural.

Why I insist they are separate sets is that the non physical clarified by its definition doesn't encompass the physical, rather distinguished from the physical. Their substances are opposites.

Rather than dwell on my example, are miracles in your own view logical impossibilities??

Sorry for the late response, been kind of busy.

Kay 17:

We do agree that there is a non physical aspect of reality, namely abstract. But you at a point insisted that ideas for lacking physical restraints was supernatural.

I am quite sure I did not

Why I insist they are separate sets is that the non physical clarified by its definition doesn't encompass the physical, rather distinguished from the physical. Their substances are opposites.

I see what you mean but then I won't classify them as opposites rather I'll classify them as some aspects of reality are limited by space and time while some other aspects aren't.

Rather than dwell on my example, are miracles in your own view logical impossibilities??

Read my post again. I believe I was clear that they aren't logical impossibilities

Sorry for the late response, been kind of busy.

That's ok

1. I think we are back to square 1. Pls define supernatural again.

2. Consequently, the non physical can not give rise to the physical.

3. Forget about my example. Are miracles logical impossibilities?

Kay 17: 1. I think we are back to square 1. Pls define supernatural again.

Scroll up

2. Consequently, the non physical can not give rise to the physical.

It can and vice versa

3. Forget about my example. Are miracles logical impossibilities?

How many times do you want me to answer this same question?

1. Pls indulge me and repost it

2. That is not possible when the nonphysical is well distinguish in material frm the physical??

3. You didn't answer

Kay 17: 1. Pls indulge me and repost it

It is really not that hard to scroll up.

2. That is not possible when the nonphysical is well distinguish in material frm the physical??

You'll now have to explain how physical matter manages to interact with a non-physical consciousness.

3. You didn't answer

I did, please scroll up