Hi

[Blackleaf]

That is incredible BL.

Most atheists always glorify science because according to them science back up their beliefs but since when science say that an inferior entity can create a superior entity?
Where is the evidence BL?

Your computer analogy is totally defective because a computer has been programmed by a human mind to do certain things.

First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.

Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.

[trdsf]

Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?

If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.

I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies.  Do we really have to explain what evidence is?  Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.

Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.

Can you or can you not provide evidence for your assertion?

[Arik]

First of all, I'm not going to justify the terms you made up. "Inferior entity" and "superior entity" are not things. Provide a clear definition for both, then we can discuss how you have no evidence to back up your definitions.

Second, your theism is showing. Stay on track. You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments, and if you can't see that, I'm done with you. The computer analogy works because there is no ghost in the computer. I've demonstrated how programming can create something entirely different than what it started with. If I open up a game of Skyrim, does the world of Skyrim actually exist? No. It's 1's and 0's firing to create the perception of that world, similar to how neurons fire in our brains to create the perceptions in our heads. Computers are basically mechanical brains, so unless you want to argue that computers have a soul, you're going to have to justify your special pleading.

1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?

2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............

Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?

3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.

[Arik]

I asked for evidence, not metaphors and inaccurate analogies.  Do we really have to explain what evidence is?  Don't answer that, it's pretty obvious we do.

Evidence is observational data that can be independently examined and verified. Aphorisms are neither evidence nor data.

Can you or can you not provide evidence[\b] for your assertion?

The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.

I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?

[Minimalist]

That is a mystery.

Not really.  We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet.  It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation.  The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.

I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.

[Blackleaf]

1) Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans and even among humans there are those superior and those inferior because the level of consciousness varies from person to person.
Is this so difficult to understand BL?

2) What about your point in saying............You've flipped from claiming that the mind couldn't be created by matter to claiming that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. Those are two different arguments...............

Where suppose to be my FLIPPED?
Those arguments may well be different but why should be wrong when they both make sense?

3) Who ever argue that computers have a soul?
Computers are created by humans so they can only do what humans build them to do.

You didn't provide the definitions of the terms I requested. Your claim remains both vaguely defined and therefor indefensible. You can't expect me to understand your arguments if you don't understand them yourself. How is a plant inferior to an animal? Contrary to popular belief, no living thing is more highly evolved than another. Every living thing evolved to survive in its environment, and they are good at surviving. For example, some fruit bearing plants have a symbiotic relationship with animals, where animals obtain sustenance from the plants, and the animals in exchange spread and fertilize the seeds. Neither one is "superior" to the other, as I see it.

As for the rest, you clearly are set in your thinking and are not capable of honest thought. You can't focus, your arguments are all over the place, and you continually fail to provide evidence of your claims.

[Hydra009]

Animals are superior to plants but inferior to humans

[trdsf]

The evidence is right in your mind.
That mind that control your saying and doing.

I am afraid that you are in great need to understand how mind, body and brain work.
Isn't your mind that tell your little finger to push this or that key in your keyboard so you can reply to Arik?

That's your evidence? 'You have a mind so I'm right'?

Well, thank you for assuming I possess a mind.  I wish I could return the compliment, but you have put forth one of the daftest things I've read in a very long time.

I'm going to recommend to you checking out a few lectures on consciousness by Daniel Dennett on YouTube -- I don't have any specific ones in mind, you can find them easily enough -- and the book The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter. Not that I necessarily agree with the conclusions of either, but you really need to think about what you think you think, and how and why you think you think it.

What you've offered here is just navel-gazing blather.  Your entire position right now is no more than a stoner's "so, the mind is like, I dunno, far out man."

[Baruch]

Few people "introspect" here.  They deny the relevance of their own minds or that of other people.  Only external senses matter (and that is what materialists would say, wouldn't they?).

[Baruch]

They are all important Baruch but I shouldn't really worry about samadhi.
Samadhi will be given to you at the correct time by your guru when he-she will see that you have done-accomplished what he previously taught you.
Never before.
Before that there is only a lot of hard work.

Remember however that my yoga does not come from Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and T. Krishnamacharya in the 20th century.

I got my samadhi from personal development, and the Heart Sutra.  The unknown author of the Heart Sutra was my guru.

[Baruch]

Sure, sure Jesus never existed.
Not even Pontius Pilate existed and the first Christians that prefer to be eaten alive by the lions rather than give away their beliefs for Jesus were a bunch of idiots because they must have followed a person that never existed.

Gee, I never thought about that mate.
I imagine that also Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great never existed or maybe not.
They existed because they were not theists.
Who knows.
I am so confused now.   

!. We only accept evidence, if it confirms our firmly held beliefs
2. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great were demi-gods.  But then so am I.  Neither of them could type in English on the Internet.

[Baruch]

Are you saying that you need evidence to prove that the driver is not a product of the vehicle?

Is not the consciousness that tell the body-brain what to do or say?
So if the consciousness is in charge why on earth should we need evidence to demonstrate that the consciousness is not created by the brain?
Have you ever seen a soldier that tell a general in command what to do?

If you still need further evidence I suggest you to ask you car if it ever create you.
You never know mate.

In my un-experience, the unconscious ocean drives the waves of the conscious.

[Baruch]

Spoken like the theist you are--can't ever quite get to the point.  I'm not sure what you said, but are you saying if one does not believe in god then the KKK will get you?  Seems about on par for you and your theist folks.  No, I'm not a superman for my views--just an atheist.  And no, I don't want to get rid of god from my dictionary, just acknowledge it for the fiction it is--like acknowledging that Bugs Bunny is a fiction, as well.

"I'm not sure what you said" ... well put.  You don't nor do you want to.  Just a shark tank feeding frenzy (of newcomers) as usual, of group think.  My choice, and ability, is I can understand what Arik is saying.  His use of words isn't gibberish to me.  I also understand you as well, very well in fact.

But there is a long term undertow here of ... Republican/Southern monsters are going to eat my ass off.

[Baruch]

Not really.  We are coming up on 8 billion examples of human consciousness crawling around on this planet.  It seems to happen every time unless there is a severe brain problem during gestation.  The mystery exists only for people who want to shoehorn their particular chosen deity into a process which is entirely natural.

I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process.

"I don't need your god, allah, zeus or quetzlcoatl to provide an explanation for a natural process." .. I agree.  Religion isn't necessarily primitive science.  Not everything in human experience is addressed thru epistemology, let along one-sided epistemology.  I can't speak for Arik, but I suspect he isn't a Southern Baptist.  And he might not need any explanations.  In my case, I don't.  Explanations by monkeys isn't of interest to me.

[Unbeliever]

Quantum entanglement shows that real physical processes are non-local.

No, it doesn't. It shows that some physical processes are non-local, not that all of them are.