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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Sure, last night for about 10 minutes, but the rigamortis was very local and recovery involved a cigarette and a nap. 
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
Ahhh, la petit mort.
How about: what I said is not relevant to anything, you win.
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.
A cite that is not anectdotal, please.
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.
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.
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
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.