Here I found a description of an experiment done over 40 years ago by a Dr. Charles Tart, but haven’t found anything suggesting it had been replicated.
It has been a long time since research has proven consciousness and brain are separate entities. Dr. Charles Tart research is only one example. It is hard to find people that can slip in and out of their bodies at will. One such person was Robert Monroe, he has written several books about his exploits and founded an institution in Faber, Virginia. This institution is visited regularly by those who wish to experience being out of body.
http://www.monroeinstitute.com/content.php?content_id=42
I find the research by Dr. Kenneth Ring among the most interesting. He test people blind at birth and found they could see while out of body.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a3
In addition to this are hundreds of cases of verified NDEs collected by the psychologhy dept of the University of Virginia. Today there are dozens of doctors, researchers, and scientists studying the out of body experiences with positive results. There is no doubt consciousness and brain are separate, the brain does not create who we are, our consciousness. Science is wrong and teaches misinformation to its students, but the time will come when not just 80+% of the world knows about the spiritual nature of man. All of the world will know about it.
First, “Science” doesn’t have students-properly trained students use the scientific method. Second, even if you could back up your “80+%” stat, it doesn’t mean anything at all unless those “80+%” agree on what the spiritual nature of man is. It’s like trying to prove that the Labrador retriever is the most popular dog in the U.S. by saying that 80+% of Americans own pets.
Entirely different to what?
Why should I mention the endgame?
You stated "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. "
Despite claiming expertise in chess, you were completely wrong. The simple program sees further than any human ever can.
The 200 move win is a certainty.
You don’t even know the difference between positions and moves? 
A position is where the pieces are placed in a certain way.
A move is where one piece moves from one square to another.
Do you understand anything about chess? :smack:
I hope not. 
I had hoped for a serious reply, now you have me doubting your post about chess. Most games in tournament chess end before 100 moves, so can’t see the importance of looking 500 moves ahead. Computers can know only what the programmer tells it. They are great at crunching numbers, but don’t think very well. I am sure you will disagree.
Here are some interesting chess statistics.
There are science students, and they go to science classes, taught by science teachers. Yes, I can show the statistic of 80+% of the people on this planet believe in God and believe they will live after the death of their body, which is what we were talking about.
You seem unable to understand either English or chess. :smack:
I posted a serious statement (knowing a great deal about chess) “that modern computers are incredibly good at chess - for example they know that certain positions are a forced win in over 200 moves…”
You (laughably) claimed some chess expertise and replied “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.”
No, it is not necessary for the programmer to see 200 moves ahead.
(This shows you don’t understand programming either.)
Yes, there is a certain win in 200 moves (in fact we are now up to 517).
Then you show you don’t even understand the difference between ‘moves’ and ‘positions’.
“Positions or moves is six of one half-dozen of another.”
Any beginner knows the difference.
Having demonstrated your ignorance on several matters, you now start to quibble:
"If we are talking only about the end game with most of the pieces removed then it is an entirely different thing. "
Of course you can’t explain why it is different. :rolleyes:
Next you come up with an irrelevance:
“Most games in tournament chess end before 100 moves, so can’t see the importance of looking 500 moves ahead.”
I didn’t say it was important, I said computers could do it. Do you understand?
Finally you state:
“Computers can know only what the programmer tells it.”
This is a lie.
OK, now I doubt everything you say about chess, I notice you didn’t say anything about the statistics I posted, you only berated me, sure sign you don’t know.
Literal thinking is the cause of most disagreements on this board. If logical thinking were substituted, debate and discussion would improve greatly.
The literal thinker confuses words with thoughts, and stumbles over the definition of words like we have seen here with “faith,” “love,” “God,” “Atheist,” “religion,” and many others believing them to be something more than the pale symbols of thought they really are. Couple that with the problems of conveying emotion and nuances with the written word, and you have communication problems.
I notice you used words in making this argument. Can you rephrase it using only thoughts, please?
What do you suggest – sign language?
How about astral projection?
Well, to be honest, I think you’re just plain wrong about people mistaking words for thoughts - and as you’ve no doubt noticed, words are kinda necessary in dealing with all of this.
But maybe I’ve misunderstood you. Please explain (use words, if you must) how people have mistaken the word ‘God’ with a thought (by which I presume you actually mean concept).
Ideas, concepts, are thoughts, nothing can be done without thought of first. That is why thoughts are so important.
Suppose I say: “God is love.” Now the logical thinker understands that the word “God” can and does produce a different thought in the mind of almost everyone hearing or reading it. Some will agree and some will disagree, but none will know exactly what my thought of God was when I said or posted it.
Whereas the literal thinker will assume or suppose that I meant the word God to be the thought of God that the literal thinker believes it is. Then if the literal thinker disagrees with “God is love” will begin to debunk the statement. Sometimes kindly, but on this board, harshing and with name calling.
Now if the literal thinker is up against a seasoned debater, this may be what the seasoned debater wants, so he can make the literal thinker look like a fool in his next post. I have seen it happen many times.
Back to you.
It’s odd that you attribute the fault in this failure of communication to your audience. If it were me, and such a misunderstanding occurred, I would wonder whether I was explaining myself clearly enough.
I was illustrating a point, there was nothing personal about it, for me or thee. I detect defensiveness in your answer. But how can one explain the thought behind the words they are using. I would think some responsibility would fall on both sides. What causes the definsiveness in people, (not directed at you), to bash a post on the first round?
It is a losing technique in debating to get angry.
Huh… I have expressed not only my faith but my direct experience with NDE and have not really been the victim of much name calling.
Perhaps the issue is not with the Literal thinker and the Logical thinker, both of these seem quite able to coexist even within the same frame of a person.
Perhaps the issue is with the open mind versus the closed mind. A mind does not need to accept, or even acknowledge every idea just to be open. One simply needs to be willing to acknowledge the right for new ideas to exist. Similarly a mind does not need to be single tracked to be closed. A closed mind simply does not allow new ideas their rights.
Reading all who reply to you with requests for cites, and clairifications of which cites will or will not be valid I am of the opinion that these are open minds. Even if they always have and always will disagree with you, they are at least willing to hear you out.
Not to say you are closed minded, you are certainly open to new ideas. But don’t take things too personal. I for one respect your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Carry on the hijack / debate / wittnessing / nonwittnessing here.
I’m not consciously being defensive. It might seem that way simply because I’m saying that I think you’re very wrong. I’m pretty sure people here understand the difference between concepts and words. Sure, debates break down into semantic tennis matches sometimes, but if the whole world fails to understand you, it’s your fault, not theirs.
Words are different from concepts, but you can use words to convey concepts. that’s actually what words are for.
I did not assign fault to anyone or anything. Why would there be multiple threads trying to define the words faith or atheist if there were not confusion. One can look in the dictionary for the meaning, don’t you think? I think words are for communication of thoughts, but do a poor job of it.
Noah Webster said something like this: “thoughts and ideas soar with the eagles while words can only plod along in pursuit.” He wrote the dictionary.
There is also a difference between positive people and negative people in debates. With one looking for the good points and the other looking for the bad points.
It all comes down to taking a post at face value without letting personal feelings color your comprehension, I believe no one can do that. Everyone reads into others’ posts their own beliefs. What do you think?
How would you be able to tell if any specific person responding to you has a closed mind?