[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Mods, I hope this is okay, but I have a question for lekatt: Why don’t you ever post more about yourself? Do you have any hobbies? What sports teams do you root for? Do you have certain types of music you like, or where do you work? What’s your favorite movie?
Things like that. Because I only see you posting about spiritual things.
[/QUOTE]
Material things don’t much interest me, they are short-lived. I like classical music. I filled out my profile with some more information, if you want something specific email me. My favorite movie is Starwars, all about the human condition.
[QUOTE=monavis]
You can prove what is known, but not just a belief. How can you see an invisible being? I know this can happen in one’s imagination, but not in reality. At some of the Catholic sighting’s of what they call the Virgin Mary only the person with the vision sees so it is in their mind, not in reality.
Millions of people once believed the world was flat, and hundreds claim to have seen the Sun spin in the sky at Fatima, yet it can be proven that the Sun did not spin or come closer to earth. Numbers do not make something so. There are millions who have not had such experiences that also doesn’t prove anything. I have had experiences in my life time that were unusual but I learned they were in my own mind, and at the time I needed something to cling to.
People can have near death experiences but once they are “dead” they cannot experience anything.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
We do live after the death of our bodies, there is some solid evidence of that through research. You may want to read up on it. Numbers do make a difference, they are the difference between anomalies and natural events.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Since computers are programmed by humans wouldn’t it be necessary for the programmer to see 200 moves ahead. Having played tournament chess for a number of years and won a trophy or two, I seriously doubt any one, computer or not could have a sure win in 200 moves. The possibile moves in a chess game are enormous, check it out.
[/QUOTE]
Oh dear.
I wasn’t trying to catch you out, but everything you say above is wrong. :eek: :rolleyes: :smack:
No it is not necessary for the programmer to see 200 moves ahead. Indeed he barely needs to know the rules of chess.
Look up endgame tablebases - here’s one to practice on.
**Using these tablebases, the new forced win length record has reached ** 517 moves!
P.S. I’ve played tournament chess for 42 years and have won three National titles and two World ones.
I also know how many possible chess positions there are (not ‘moves’ as you put.)
[QUOTE=glee]
Oh dear.
I wasn’t trying to catch you out, but everything you say above is wrong. :eek: :rolleyes: :smack:
No it is not necessary for the programmer to see 200 moves ahead. Indeed he barely needs to know the rules of chess.
Look up endgame tablebases - here’s one to practice on.
**Using these tablebases, the new forced win length record has reached ** 517 moves!
P.S. I’ve played tournament chess for 42 years and have won three National titles and two World ones.
I also know how many possible chess positions there are (not ‘moves’ as you put.)
[/QUOTE]
If we are talking only about the end game with most of the pieces removed then it is an entirely different thing. You didn’t mention the end game in your first post. Positions or moves is six of one half-dozen of another. Sorry I didn’t understand what you were saying.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Material things don’t much interest me, they are short-lived. I like classical music. I filled out my profile with some more information, if you want something specific email me. My favorite movie is Starwars, all about the human condition.
Thanks for asking.
[/QUOTE]
So why not participate in some other types of topics? Seriously, I think that’s one reason why you get so much heat here.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Since computers are programmed by humans wouldn’t it be necessary for the programmer to see 200 moves ahead. Having played tournament chess for a number of years and won a trophy or two, I seriously doubt any one, computer or not could have a sure win in 200 moves. The possibile moves in a chess game are enormous, check it out.
[/QUOTE]
As a person who programs a computer professionally, I will say with certainty that humans don’t need to be able to predict the complete set of possible outcomes to be able to write a computer program to find those outcomes. Heck, if they could, you wouldn’t bother to write the program in a lot of cases; you’d just ask the programmer for the answer!
[QUOTE=lekatt]
We do live after the death of our bodies, there is some solid evidence of that through research. You may want to read up on it. Numbers do make a difference, they are the difference between anomalies and natural events.
One more thing, everything happens in the mind.
.
[/QUOTE]
Would you please post the solid evidence for life after death? I mean true scientific proof or evidence. Not near death but actual death. Yes, what we believe happens in our mind and all that we do as humans, however when we die our mind is also gone so there is no more thoughts.
[QUOTE=monavis]
Would you please post the solid evidence for life after death? I mean true scientific proof or evidence. Not near death but actual death. Yes, what we believe happens in our mind and all that we do as humans, however when we die our mind is also gone so there is no more thoughts.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
When we die our mind (consciousness) remains alive and well, there are hundreds of veridical NDEs that show real evidence of that. Dead is without brain or heart activity. That is the definition of death by the AMA, as I last read it.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
As a person who programs a computer professionally, I will say with certainty that humans don’t need to be able to predict the complete set of possible outcomes to be able to write a computer program to find those outcomes. Heck, if they could, you wouldn’t bother to write the program in a lot of cases; you’d just ask the programmer for the answer!
[/QUOTE]
When I was programming years ago I knew what I wanted the outcome of the program to be. I once wrote a program that played blackjack to test the odds, but found out computers random generator is not really random, but then how could it be. Today I realize is different, haven’t done any programming lately.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
So why not participate in some other types of topics? Seriously, I think that’s one reason why you get so much heat here.
(And Star Wars kicks ass)
[/QUOTE]
I came to this board because an atheist friend of mine ask me too. I couldn’t believe the hate being directed at religion and other spiritual things posted here. Knowing that hate is ignorance, I started to see if I could bring some knowledge to bare, but it is taking longer than I thought it would.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I came to this board because an atheist friend of mine ask me too. I couldn’t believe the hate being directed at religion and other spiritual things posted here. Knowing that hate is ignorance, I started to see if I could bring some knowledge to bare, but it is taking longer than I thought it would.
[/QUOTE]
The difference between the wise and the arrogant is that the wise recognize that fighting ignorance is a joint effort (and often involves ones own ignorance being fought), whereas the arrogant thinks fighting igorance is a matter of other people listening to him.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
When I was programming years ago I knew what I wanted the outcome of the program to be. I once wrote a program that played blackjack to test the odds, but found out computers random generator is not really random, but then how could it be. Today I realize is different, haven’t done any programming lately.
[/QUOTE]
[hyjack]
Typically you have a fairly good general idea of what you want the program to do, and occasionaly you have a few specific examples of correct data to test against, but it is very common for one not to have every possible detail mapped out in advance. For example, if you want a program to calculate and tell you the shortest route between any two points in the country, you don’t start out buried in a huge stack of maps showing the desired routes between every possible pair of places. Similarly, if you want to write a program to calculate tax returns, you don’t start with pre-prepared printouts of every possible set of incomes, deducations, ect, precaulculated to show the correct result before you start programming.
Also, if you seed your random number generator with the date/time before using it, it looks a lot more random than otherwise - though admittedly it’s still not really random. Unless you’re in unix. And even then, only until the accumulated pool of randomity gets used up - and only if the universe outside the mind of the computer is less deterministic than the universe within it.
[/hyjack]
This thread has been created from the last two hijacks that lekatt has perpetrated on other discussions with his interruptions of his favorite themes.
Everyone is welcome to participate, but any interruption of an existing thread to make unsupported claims of NDEs and OBEs (with claims for “science” that are NEVER backed up) will be excised from those threads and merged with this one.
If someone actually presents a genuine peer-reviewed study that provides evidence for an NDE or and OBE being other than a manifestation of an internal chemical reaction in the brain, this protocol will be suspended, but until then, rather than simply banning lekatt for being a jerk, we will allow him to make his unsupported claims in a separate thread to avoid destroying other discussions.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=lekatt]
We do live after the death of our bodies, there is some solid evidence of that through research. You may want to read up on it. Numbers do make a difference, they are the difference between anomalies and natural events.
One more thing, everything happens in the mind.
.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any links to peer reviewed published studies showing this solid evidence?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
When we die our mind (consciousness) remains alive and well, there are hundreds of veridical NDEs that show real evidence of that. Dead is without brain or heart activity. That is the definition of death by the AMA, as I last read it.
Read about Pam, she was as dead as dead gets.
[/QUOTE]
Are you stating that her body was starting to decay? I think you mean it looked like she may have been dead, but apparently wasn’t, just didn’t show on the monitors.
I believe it was in the early 60’s(shown on TV with witnesses) an Indian Swamee had him self buried for 3 days then when they dug him up he came to. They showed him lowering his heart rate,mind etc. so he could have been declared legally dead. Of course he wasn’t. He after many years of practice learned to go into a state of hibernation.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I came to this board because an atheist friend of mine ask me too. I couldn’t believe the hate being directed at religion and other spiritual things posted here. Knowing that hate is ignorance, I started to see if I could bring some knowledge to bare, but it is taking longer than I thought it would.
[/QUOTE]
Are you stating that anyone who disagrees with you are hateful? I do not see it that way, most of the responders seem to be just looking for proof from you and you do not seem to be able to do that. Most do not seem to hate religion or spirituality but do not see it as more then a belief so cannot agree with you. So many religious and spiritual people do not seem to see that you have any better explainations for them either.
I was wondering…has anybody suggested a simple, repeatable test of NDEs? It seems to me all that has to be done is to have an object placed in the room of a patient after he/she is in cardiac arrest. The object should be out of possible sight lines and the medical personnel should not be aware of it’s presence either. Then, after the patient is resuscitated the object would be removed and after s/he wakes a third party would conduct an interview to determine if the patient was aware of the object.
By itself this isn’t proof since there’s always the chance fact, but if the object was incongruous to the locale and the person (say, a small statue of a clown or something that wouldn’t normally be in the room) and was accurately described it could suggest more research was warranted.
This would also have to be repeated a large number of times, of course.
The book Spook describes just such an experiment being performed at a major hospital. As of the book’s writing, there had been no positive results. I have no idea whether the experiment is still ongoing.
While you may not be convinced that OBE’s are not real, many researchers are convinced they are real. They were convinced by the accurate accounts of the experiencers. As one who has been out of body I assure you it is very real and there are millions of examples of it on the Internet. This experience alone is enough to establish a non-local consciousness.
Perhaps a person experiencing a OBE Is not sedated enough and can hear the nurses and doctors talking,her brain could understand that and when she came to she thought she was out of her body.
