[QUOTE=lekatt]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Which just shows that “debate” is yet another term you don’t understand. It isn’t a case of “positive” and “negative” people looking for “good” and “bad” points-it’s a case of people who are successful in putting across their points, and those who aren’t. It doesn’t matter how positive or negative you are if you are unable to communicate your ideas to the audience. There are two reasons for failure in debating-trying to make a point that the audience thoroughly disagrees with, or totally failing to make the audience understand your point in the first place. In both cases, the blame for failure can only be laid at your own feet.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
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?
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Objectivity is a skill that can be practiced. Not always attained, but it’s possible to try, and to enjoy measured success at it.
If it were true that nobody could do it, nobody would ever change their mind on any subject, ever.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You doubt there is a computer forced win in 200 moves?
You still claim that a programmer must tell the computer the 200 move win?
You still claim that ‘position’ and ‘move’ are the same?
I note that you make claims, get refuted and keep changing the subject.
Please answer the three points above.
As for your statistics, I didn’t bother to comment since they were irrelevant to anything we had said earlier.
If you want a comment: “Yes there are a huge number of possibilities (that’s positions, not moves) from the original position. And computers haven’t ‘solved’ chess from the original position.”
Now explain why that is relevant to any of your thrre claims above.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
How would you be able to tell if any specific person responding to you has a closed mind?
[/QUOTE]
First the odds drop when they respond. A closed mind doesn’t care.
Then as a part of the debate look for empathy. If one is set in one’s ways but is empathetically sensitive to your views it’s a good sign.
Finally, kick 'em. Sometimes the quick and easy route is the best one.
No, No, No, don’t kick 'em, just don’t make any assumptions. Present your position, be prepaired to back up that position with cites if needed, compair or contrast your position to other positions, stand your ground with regards to your values and be prepaired to be flexable with your ideas. Let other people take care of themselves.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I believe you have some very good points. I agree psychology is pseudo-science, and I was a psychology major in college. They only test behaviour, and each individual is unique in behaviour.
The fact that scientists tend to dismiss spiritual phenomenon out of hand is not right. But some scientists are investigating spiritual themes, especially in near death experiences. There is a growing consenses that consciousness does continue to live after the death of the body. I will leave a link to a story about such research, there are more.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb334515.htm
It would be nice if it was not met with contempt prior to investigation.
[/QUOTE]
I am trying to understand that “there is a consenses that Consciousness continues to leave after the death of the body, in near death experiences”.
It was my understanding that when life left the body the person was declared dead, then the body functions were shut down and rigamortis sets in and the body begans to decay. There is a great difference between being near death and dead. The last I heard, the machines that register blood pressure,heart rate and brain activity can be so slight that the machines we have now cannot detect if there is a spark of life or not.
Has anyone had rigamortis set in and then recovered?
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
I am trying to understand that “there is a consenses that Consciousness continues to leave after the death of the body, in near death experiences”.
It was my understanding that when life left the body the person was declared dead, then the body functions were shut down and rigamortis sets in and the body begans to decay. There is a great difference between being near death and dead. The last I heard, the machines that register blood pressure,heart rate and brain activity can be so slight that the machines we have now cannot detect if there is a spark of life or not.
Has anyone had rigamortis set in and then recovered?
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
Sure, last night for about 10 minutes, but the rigamortis was very local and recovery involved a cigarette and a nap. 
[QUOTE=photopat]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference unless (a) the object was impossible not to notice and (b) there was such an object in every single place where anyone could ever have an NDE.
Absent those two features, implementation of your scheme would result in:
1/ NDE believers simply saying that they didn’t notice happen to notice the object (if their NDE occurred in the presence of such an object). They would reject their failure to notice the particular object as necessarily amounting to evidence that they did not have an NDE
2/ NDE believers just believing in NDE’s which were said to have occurred in places where no such object was in place to trip them up.
It’s rather like paranormalists who will always wave away any study that shows that any given astrologer failed a test by saying merely that that particular astrologer on that particular day failed, but that doesn’t prove that astrology doesn’t work for other people and/or on other occasions.
These things are matters of faith and there is no evidence that will ever be sufficient to disprove them to those who believe.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Sure, last night for about 10 minutes, but the rigamortis was very local and recovery involved a cigarette and a nap.
[/QUOTE]
Funny, you must be over 60,many of my friends joke that they had rigamortis set in or was beginning to before they were dead. 
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
Funny, you must be over 60,many of my friends joke that they had rigamortis set in or was beginning to before they were dead.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
Nope, turn 40 this year.
It’s been a hard life.
Course, it was much harder at 20, but I digress.
(Either I whooshed you or you whooshed me, one way or t’other they’s somethin’ flyin’ round in 'ere)
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Want to thank you for your accurate post. I believe the thing that is the most frustrating is not the name calling but the refusal to even read and discuss the links I provide. I can not think of a single time on this board where near death experiences were ever really debated on their content and merit of evidence. The usual event is I post a link and everyone says the link the invalid with no discussion at all. Even if the link is research done at a University by a qualified researcher and published in a scientific journal. Only occasionally will anyone even mention a near death experience content. Now if I am wrong someone please show me the thread where NDEs were discussed by content.
I don’t have a newsletter, writing for me is a difficult task. I am asked to post on several boards and sometimes do, but I spend the majority of my time helping those who want help, and expanding my web site. I do appreciate your thoughtful post and wish you the best of everything.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I disagree. Objectivity is a skill that can be practiced. Not always attained, but it’s possible to try, and to enjoy measured success at it.
If it were true that nobody could do it, nobody would ever change their mind on any subject, ever.
[/QUOTE]
The only way someone can be objective is to know all knowledge, which is impossible. We bring to the table only what we know, and what we know we learned subjectively. Our personal experience is the only method we have of interfacing with physical life and our personal experience is subjective experience.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Sure, last night for about 10 minutes, but the rigamortis was very local and recovery involved a cigarette and a nap.
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, la petit mort.
[QUOTE=glee]
You doubt there is a computer forced win in 200 moves?
You still claim that a programmer must tell the computer the 200 move win?
You still claim that ‘position’ and ‘move’ are the same?
I note that you make claims, get refuted and keep changing the subject.
Please answer the three points above.
As for your statistics, I didn’t bother to comment since they were irrelevant to anything we had said earlier.
If you want a comment: “Yes there are a huge number of possibilities (that’s positions, not moves) from the original position. And computers haven’t ‘solved’ chess from the original position.”
Now explain why that is relevant to any of your thrre claims above.
[/QUOTE]
How about: what I said is not relevant to anything, you win.
[QUOTE=monavis]
I am trying to understand that “there is a consenses that Consciousness continues to leave after the death of the body, in near death experiences”.
It was my understanding that when life left the body the person was declared dead, then the body functions were shut down and rigamortis sets in and the body begans to decay. There is a great difference between being near death and dead. The last I heard, the machines that register blood pressure,heart rate and brain activity can be so slight that the machines we have now cannot detect if there is a spark of life or not.
Has anyone had rigamortis set in and then recovered?
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
Yes, there is a consenses in the world that consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.
Now the argument you put forth: “The last I heard, the machines that register blood pressure, heart rate and brain activity can be so slight that the machines we have now cannot detect if there is a spark of life or not,” fails to answer how can experiencers “see” what is going on around with their eyes closed. Also there have been experimental surgeries where the blood has been drained from the patients head for a number of minutes and the patient could still see the whole operation.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Also there have been experimental surgeries where the blood has been drained from the patients head for a number of minutes and the patient could still see the whole operation.
[/QUOTE]
A cite that is not anectdotal, please.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
The only way someone can be objective is to know all knowledge, which is impossible.
[/quote]
Why? (and if this is true, you can’t possibly know it, by your own logic).
I’m not talking about absolute objectivity anyway. Objectivity isn’t an all-or-nothing attribute. It is possible to become aware of your own emotional reactions, biases, prejudices, and mental blank spots - and using this awareness, force yourself to be more objective in your consideration of something.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Why? (and if this is true, you can’t possibly know it, by your own logic).
I’m not talking about absolute objectivity anyway. Objectivity isn’t an all-or-nothing attribute. It is possible to become aware of your own emotional reactions, biases, prejudices, and mental blank spots - and using this awareness, force yourself to be more objective in your consideration of something.
[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely correct, one can practice objectiveness. If you spend time understanding yourself, as you said, you can grow more objective in your choices in life. It requires a lot of work, constant vigilance and mindfulness, but it is worth every minute of it. One could try to learn all things, but it would take too long. I believe the fastest way is through using right thinking.
Emotions can be divided into positive and negative, Love and Fear. By using our thoughts to dwell only on the positive emotions and using meditation, affirmations, reading, we can eventually replace most negative thoughts.
When one studies martial arts there is a lot of time spent on mental attitudes. This is necessary if one wants to win battles. The training is used to reduce fear of opponent, to never show anger, or hate because this freezes thoughts and motion. The way to do that is through positive thoughts for your enemy.
Now is this sounds a little like “love your enemies” of religion, it is because it is like it. Martial arts training is spiritual training, and the great Masters of the past and present all teach the same principles. However, all who hear it do not heed it.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, there is a consenses in the world that consciousness continues to live after the death of the body.
Now the argument you put forth: “The last I heard, the machines that register blood pressure, heart rate and brain activity can be so slight that the machines we have now cannot detect if there is a spark of life or not,” fails to answer how can experiencers “see” what is going on around with their eyes closed. Also there have been experimental surgeries where the blood has been drained from the patients head for a number of minutes and the patient could still see the whole operation.
[/QUOTE]
I take it the consenses was made up of a couple of people. Most who want to believe they lived after an NDE; but it remains to be a near death experience not death experience.
There may have been blood drained from the brain but they were not dead!
You have the need to believe your experiences were real, and as I stated earlier that is your right. To me dead is just that dead,the brain doesn’t have a spark left so there is no conciousness left in the brain to think or remember. NDEs to me is just like temporary amnesia.
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
I take it the consenses was made up of a couple of people. Most who want to believe they lived after an NDE; but it remains to be a near death experience not death experience.
There may have been blood drained from the brain but they were not dead!
You have the need to believe your experiences were real, and as I stated earlier that is your right. To me dead is just that dead,the brain doesn’t have a spark left so there is no conciousness left in the brain to think or remember. NDEs to me is just like temporary amnesia.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
Your mind is closed on the subject. The consensus is made up of most of the people living on this planet. As for death, there is no such thing. You will continue to live after your body dies, you will never die. NDEs are real spiritual experiences. I have never heard anyone say without blood the brain is still living. Good luck.
The great religions of this world were founded on principles of conduct, some like to call them crutches, but they are really survival techniques for life in the physical. While Jesus was worshipped as a God, His real intent was to provide us with rules of conduct that would increase our ability to cope with life.
Today the world has many people with mental and emotional problems, people who commit suicide and some that kill others in the process. Depression affects close to 10% of our population, stress is rampant and sleep disorders abundant.
What can we do about it, teach the survival principles of the ancients. I call them spiritual principles. It is not necessary to belong to any organization, or even believe in God (whatever that word means to you), it is only necessary to want to improve yourself, to grow emotionally and with wisdom.