Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:MSKnc.3019$H4.217@www.newsranger.com:

In article <BCC4D095.3538BE06%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann
says...

"Vic Sagerquist" wrote:

I've never witnessed, nor been presented with viable witness that
telepathic communication is possible. What is your evidence that it
is?

georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:

The regular presence of God the Holy Spirit that includes telepathy.
And the unfortunate, though irregular, presence of evil spirits in
everyday life.

<snicker> Are these the same evil spirits that you claim are attracted
to incense and bells?

Don't forget the demons of eyestrain and backaches. I wonder if the
Angels of Glasses and Ergonomic chairs ever managed to drive them away?

"Michael Cole" <mdc222@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2gg0bvF2d05nU1@uni-berlin.de>...

"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7517a083.0405100651.2f5a511b@posting.google.com

Maybe, maybe not. Awareness is what matters. An amoeba has no
brain but is certainly aware. And it is self aware. Otherwise it
would not understand the concept that it must engulf food in order
to survive. Yet it has no brain! So what, then, links the thinker
to his thoughts and where do the thoughts exist before you have
them?

Now this is very silly. Does it "understand the concept that it
must engulf food in order to survive"? Does a tree understand the
concept that it must grow leaves that point roughly towards the sun,
in order to survive? Does a windmill understand the concept that it
needs to have its blades roughly perdendicular towards the wind, in
order to turn? Understanding of concepts is a sign of intelligence,
which trees and amoeba (and windmills) have not demonstrated. Don't
confuse action with understanding of the reasons for the action.

I would say you are being silly for two reasons.

1) You compare living and non-living things. Nowhere did I imply
that non-living things were aware. Life is the difference. Those
things that exhibit awareness, we consider to be alive.

Although, out
of ego, we tend to draw the line at artificial intelligence programmes
no matter how well or intelligently they react to stimuli.

2) By understanding, I meant to imply that it could discriminate. I
admit understanding was not a good word to use there. There can be
little doubt, though, that the amoeba becomes aware of food as such,
because it does not attempt to engulf that which would not be food.
Therefore it displays that it can sense the difference and act
according to what is in its best interest. I never intended to imply
that it has a concept of proper amoeba nutrition or whether it muses
about from where its next meal would come. There are plants that
react and turn with the light or are designed to snap shut given
certain stimuli. This accords with chemically programmed awareness
but, again, I don't think the plant reckons why it does it.