Quick Poll - Do you believe in God?

[Longhorn]

What is his deal with NDEs? ._.

[Tonus]

As far as you or anyone else keep on stating something that is not backed up by solid evidence then i will have to reinstate the obvious
which is...............gimma the evidence mate. 

As I said, read the preceding pages. We have discussed this.

Sorry Ton but that is no evidence at all.

On the contrary, it's exactly the evidence you keep requesting. The ability to induce NDEs and study the effects allows us to understand how and why they happen. Hint-- no spirit worlds so far. That's pretty important.

What rational approach?
Don't be ridiculous Ton.
There is nothing rational in your view.

Again, just because you claim this doesn't make it true. You can continue to mention NDE experiences and ignore the evidence that NDEs are yet another function of the brain, but that doesn't matter. Your intransigence only matters to the extent that it keeps you ignorant, and in this case willfully so. But to anyone interested in actually reaching the truth of the matter, you're a dead end.

So you say that your biology books tell the truth and the NDEs are rubbish?

No, biology books tell the current facts and understanding about evolution. You are the one trying to tie spiritual souls to evolution, even though you don't know anything about evolution. Being deliberately ignorant in order to continue to support a belief system is just another way the human mind functions (sports fanaticism and extreme political views are good examples of this). I'm pointing this out to you so that you no longer have an excuse for clinging to your views. You will cling to them anyway, but not for lack of knowledge anymore.

[Little Rik]

As far as you or anyone else keep on stating something that is not backed up by solid evidence then i will have to reinstate the obvious
which is...............gimma the evidence mate. 

As I said, read the preceding pages.  We have discussed this.

If we have already discussed this why you keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain?

Sorry Ton but that is no evidence at all.

On the contrary, it's exactly the evidence you keep requesting.  The ability to induce NDEs and study the effects allows us to understand how and why they happen.  Hint-- no spirit worlds so far.  That's pretty important.

We also can induce a feeling as if we are in paradise by taking drugs.
That doesn't mean that paradise doesn't exist.
You see how confused you are? 

What rational approach?
Don't be ridiculous Ton.
There is nothing rational in your view.

Again, just because you claim this doesn't make it true.  You can continue to mention NDE experiences and ignore the evidence that NDEs are yet another function of the brain, but that doesn't matter.  Your intransigence only matters to the extent that it keeps you ignorant, and in this case willfully so.  But to anyone interested in actually reaching the truth of the matter, you're a dead end.

If you got any evidence that NDEs are bull then show this evidence.

So you say that your biology books tell the truth and the NDEs are rubbish?

[quote pid='968589' dateline='1434715230']
No, biology books tell the current facts and understanding about evolution.  You are the one trying to tie spiritual souls to evolution, even though you don't know anything about evolution.  Being deliberately ignorant in order to continue to support a belief system is just another way the human mind functions (sports fanaticism and extreme political views are good examples of this).  I'm pointing this out to you so that you no longer have an excuse for clinging to your views.  You will cling to them anyway, but not for lack of knowledge anymore.

Oh, please Ton don't talk about ignorant.
You build up in your mind that physical science got it right
but when i did asked you whether these researchers die and then came back to life
so they could tell whether there is God or not you don't reply.
Ton this is the only evidence, all the rest is just guessing.
The sooner you get this in your mind the sooner you will get out the mental sewer
in which you lie. 



[/quote]

[Tonus]

If we have already discussed this why you keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain?

That isn't what I've been saying.  I've been pointing out that the mind is a function of the brain, and have explained why, including the evidence for why it is reasonable to believe that.  Consciousness is a state, not a product.  And we know it's a state of the brain because it's pretty easy to induce by altering brain chemistry.

We also can induce a feeling as if we are in paradise by taking drugs.
That doesn't mean that paradise doesn't exist.

You are making my point for me.  We know that by altering brain chemistry (ie, physical change) we can cause people to enter a dream-like hallucinatory state.  We now know that the same can be achieved when there is temporary loss of oxygen to the brain under certain circumstances.  Physical changes to a physical brain produces repeatable results, which implies that the mind is a function of the brain.

You see how confused you are?

Only by your intransigence in the face of reality.  Well, not entirely.  I understand why you're reacting this way, but it's still counter-productive for you to do so.

If you got any evidence that NDEs are bull then show this evidence.

Again I have to wonder if you are paying attention.  I have not said that "NDEs are bull."  I have pointed out that we are learning what causes them, and that it has nothing to do with spirits or souls.  It's a logical extension of the understanding that the mind is a function of the brain.

Oh, please Ton don't talk about ignorant.

Then stop saying ignorant things.

You build up in your mind that physical science got it right

That's because physical science (which is to say... science) tends to get it right.  Our modern world is evidence of that.

but when i did asked you whether these researchers die and then came back to life
so they could tell whether there is God or not you don't reply.

Because it's a dumb argument.

Ton this is the only evidence, all the rest is just guessing.

And you wonder why I call you ignorant?

It seems to me that your arguments regarding the soul come down to your claims, which you admit are just beliefs you seem to have no basis for.  Your only arguments in defense of your beliefs are "you can't prove otherwise" and "NDEs."  The former is just as easily turned back on you for any counter-claims, and is therefore worthless.  The latter is the only thing holding your beliefs together.  And if that comes undone, so does your whole belief structure.  Maybe that, in and of itself, is reason enough for you to doubt that belief structure.

[Little Rik]

If we have already discussed this why you keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain?

That isn't what I've been saying.  I've been pointing out that the mind is a function of the brain, and have explained why, including the evidence for why it is reasonable to believe that.  Consciousness is a state, not a product.  And we know it's a state of the brain because it's pretty easy to induce by altering brain chemistry.

What a hell of a mental mess Ton.
1) You have......pointing out that the mind is a function of the brain.......
That is a statement Ton and a statement MUST come with solid evidence.
2) Your statement is followed by a so called evidence that is not solid as it should but as you say is.........REASONABLE.
What a load of bull Ton.
Since when an evidence is reasonable?
As far as i know an evidence is 100% evidence not reasonable.
3) Consciousness is a state?
What a crap is this Ton?
Consciousness is YOU.
You decide to start the thinking and the action.
Who else start the action otherwise?
4) You say......And we know it's a state of the brain because it's pretty easy to induce by altering brain chemistry..............
I can alter the engine of my car and this will affect the way the vehicle run and therefore also the driver will be affected.
Does this means that the driver is a state of the car?
For Christ sake Ton you are in a total mental mess.
You need help and a lot of it.  

We also can induce a feeling as if we are in paradise by taking drugs.
That doesn't mean that paradise doesn't exist.

You are making my point for me.  We know that by altering brain chemistry (ie, physical change) we can cause people to enter a dream-like hallucinatory state.  We now know that the same can be achieved when there is temporary loss of oxygen to the brain under certain circumstances.  Physical changes to a physical brain produces repeatable results, which implies that the mind is a function of the brain.

BULL.
We know that if you put kerosene in your car tank instead of petrol or gasoline your car will run like shit.
At the same time we know that if you put shit in your mouth your brain will not work properly and your consciousness
will also be affected.
Does this mean that the driver is a function of the car or that the consciousness mind is a function of the brain?
Give me a brake Ton, for Christ sake.  

You see how confused you are?

Only by your intransigence in the face of reality.  Well, not entirely.  I understand why you're reacting this way, but it's still counter-productive for you to do so.

In the face of reality?
Are you serious Ton?
The body sooner or later will die so that can not possibly be the reality.
Physical evidence that the consciousness will survive the body is not there yet and may never come
but spiritually speaking is a different story so the reality may well be the opposite of what you think.
Scientists only work on the physical aspect.
No wonder that they can't find anything.

If you got any evidence that NDEs are bull then show this evidence.

Again I have to wonder if you are paying attention.  I have not said that "NDEs are bull."  I have pointed out that we are learning what causes them, and that it has nothing to do with spirits or souls.  It's a logical extension of the understanding that the mind is a function of the brain.

What a hell of a confusion Ton.
1) First you say that you don't say that NDEs are bull and then you say the opposite by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with spirits or souls.
2) You even state without any evidence that ......... we are learning what causes them..........
How did you learn? Where is the evidence that what you presume to have learned is true?
Are your experts skill enough to understand whether the consciousness is able to live a dead brain or not?
An old saying........THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.      

Oh, please Ton don't talk about ignorant.

Then stop saying ignorant things.

You build up in your mind that physical science got it right

That's because physical science (which is to say... science) tends to get it right.  Our modern world is evidence of that.

YEAH.
Ages ago they say that they got rid of malaria.
After they failed again and again malaria is still the No1 killer globally speaking.
Try again Ton but please less crap.  

but when i did asked you whether these researchers die and then came back to life
so they could tell whether there is God or not you don't reply.

Because it's a dumb argument.

Actually that is the ONLY way to know whether God is there or not from a physical point of view
so considering that you take in consideration only what can be proved physically speaking then
the question is not dumb at all.

Ton this is the only evidence, all the rest is just guessing.

And you wonder why I call you ignorant?

I would have thought that ignorant is the one who believe that a piece of matter like the brain is more important than the real I or the super conscious mind.  

It seems to me that your arguments regarding the soul come down to your claims, which you admit are just beliefs you seem to have no basis for.  Your only arguments in defense of your beliefs are "you can't prove otherwise" and "NDEs."  The former is just as easily turned back on you for any counter-claims, and is therefore worthless.  The latter is the only thing holding your beliefs together.  And if that comes undone, so does your whole belief structure.  Maybe that, in and of itself, is reason enough for you to doubt that belief structure.

If we take in consideration only the physical aspect of the issue then it is obvious that nothing can be proved.
How can something abstract as the consciousness can be proved in a physical way?
You never thought about it Ton, did you?    

[Tonus]

Since when an evidence is reasonable?

I did not say that the evidence was reasonable.  I said that the evidence allows us to reach a conclusion that is reasonable.  You have got to start paying better attention than this.  The words are literally written down on a computer screen for you to see.  How can you keep getting them so wrong?

Consciousness is YOU.

No.  Consciousness is a state.  You are either conscious or unconscious; aware or unaware.  "Consciousness is YOU" is meaningless drivel.

I can alter the engine of my car and this will affect the way the vehicle run and therefore also the driver will be affected.
Does this means that the driver is a state of the car?

Now you want me to explain your own awful analogies?  Why are you confusing the mind and consciousness?  Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

In the face of reality?
Are you serious Ton?

Yes, I'm serious.  You seem to be completely confused about all of this stuff.  You can't seem to keep your explanations clear, you use atrocious analogies, and you seem incapable of comprehending anything you read, because you keep ascribing to me things I haven't said.

What a hell of a confusion Ton.

No kidding.

1) First you say that you don't say that NDEs are bull and then you say the opposite by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with spirits or souls.

Those statements are not "opposite."  Again, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, or perhaps even what words mean.  I understand that you like to redefine words to suit your purposes, but now you're becoming almost completely unintelligible.

2) You even state without any evidence that ......... we are learning what causes them..........
How did you learn? Where is the evidence that what you presume to have learned is true?

Read the previous pages of our conversation where I explain all of this.

Are your experts skill enough to understand whether the consciousness is able to live a dead brain or not?

As I pointed out earlier, this is an example of "you can't prove it isn't."  It's a poor way to push for your claims, since I can simply point out that you cannot prove it IS.  So why are you wasting my time with such a useless ploy?

Ages ago they say that they got rid of malaria.
After they failed again and again malaria is still the No1 killer globally speaking.

If you are going to try to use an exception to prove the rule, at least try to use an actual exception.  Science doesn't make boasts like "they got rid of malaria."  Stop making up claims to try and salvage a hopeless point.

Actually that is the ONLY way to know whether God is there or not from a physical point of view
so considering that you take in consideration only what can be proved physically speaking then
the question is not dumb at all.

I didn't say it was a dumb question.  I said it's a dumb argument.  If the only way to confirm that god exists is to die, then you have no way to show me that god exists.  Same with spirits and souls and any other fairytale creature you want to conjure up.  If that's all you have, your argument is a waste of time.  It is worthless.

I would have thought that ignorant is the one who believe that a piece of matter like the brain is more important than the real I or the super conscious mind.

That's one of the things that is keeping you ignorant.

If we take in consideration only the physical aspect of the issue then it is obvious that nothing can be proved.

Lots of things can be proved by taking only the physical into consideration.  You're typing this on a computer or tablet somewhere and posting it to a website on the internet, aren't you?  That requires numerous layers of technology, from electrical power to microscopic computer circuits to cabling standards and mathematics and lots of things that we prove with only the physical world to study.  The best part is that no matter where you are or who you are or what culture you live in, science works the same way every time.  Religion, on the other hand?  Not so much.

How can something abstract as the consciousness can be proved in a physical way?

First, by realizing that it's not "abstract."  Second, by studying how changes to the brain affect a person's mind and personality.  By studying how the brain reacts to different stimuli.  By studying how environmental and emotional stresses produce similar and reproducible results.  I keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring it.  But as I've said before, this is your problem and not mine.  The world is leaving you behind, Rik.  Don't wait until you're dead to find out if you were right-- it'll be too late then.

[Little Rik]

Since when an evidence is reasonable?

I did not say that the evidence was reasonable.  I said that the evidence allows us to reach a conclusion that is reasonable.  You have got to start paying better attention than this.  The words are literally written down on a computer screen for you to see.  How can you keep getting them so wrong?

Ton, that is crazy.
Absolutely crazy.
If you already got the evidence what's the need to reach a conclusion?
Actually at this stage in time it seem that your conclusion is totally lacking of any evidence.
You just go around and around like this creature and getting nowhere.

Consciousness is YOU.

No.  Consciousness is a state.  You are either conscious or unconscious; aware or unaware.  "Consciousness is YOU" is meaningless drivel.

If the consciousness is a state where is the real you? 
You are hilarious Ton. 

I can alter the engine of my car and this will affect the way the vehicle run and therefore also the driver will be affected.
Does this means that the driver is a state of the car?

Now you want me to explain your own awful analogies?  Why are you confusing the mind and consciousness?  Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I certainly do Ton.
Have you?  

In the face of reality?
Are you serious Ton?

Yes, I'm serious.  You seem to be completely confused about all of this stuff.  You can't seem to keep your explanations clear, you use atrocious analogies, and you seem incapable of comprehending anything you read, because you keep ascribing to me things I haven't said.

You keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Did i ascribe to you this or you said this? 

Little Rik
1) First you say that you don't say that NDEs are bull and then you say the opposite by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with spirits or souls.

Those statements are not "opposite."  Again, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, or perhaps even what words mean.  I understand that you like to redefine words to suit your purposes, but now you're becoming almost completely unintelligible.

Those who had a real NDE clearly say that the consciousness or spirit soul leave the dead body so by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with souls you contradict yourself.  

2) You even state without any evidence that ......... we are learning what causes them..........
How did you learn? Where is the evidence that what you presume to have learned is true?

Read the previous pages of our conversation where I explain all of this.

You may have learned what someone guess.
You certainly have NOT learn the truth. 

Are your experts skill enough to understand whether the consciousness is able to live a dead brain or not?

As I pointed out earlier, this is an example of "you can't prove it isn't."  It's a poor way to push for your claims, since I can simply point out that you cannot prove it IS.  So why are you wasting my time with such a useless ploy?

Ton, Ton it is YOU that make claims not me and therefore it is YOU that got to back your claims up.
Didn't you claim that NDEs have nothing to do with souls? 

Ages ago they say that they got rid of malaria.
After they failed again and again malaria is still the No1 killer globally speaking.

If you are going to try to use an exception to prove the rule, at least try to use an actual exception.  Science doesn't make boasts like "they got rid of malaria."  Stop making up claims to try and salvage a hopeless point.

Wrong again Ton.
Science in this particular medical field boast time and time again that what they came up with was the solution.
Well as usual it turned up that the solution was far far away as we can see today. 

Actually that is the ONLY way to know whether God is there or not from a physical point of view
so considering that you take in consideration only what can be proved physically speaking then
the question is not dumb at all.

I didn't say it was a dumb question.  I said it's a dumb argument.  If the only way to confirm that god exists is to die, then you have no way to show me that god exists.  Same with spirits and souls and any other fairytale creature you want to conjure up.  If that's all you have, your argument is a waste of time.  It is worthless.

Thousand upon thousand of people in the present and in the past die and then came back to life (NDEs).
Guess what Ton.
A lot of them agree that God is there.
Even those who didn't have a direct experience about God are not denying that God is not there. 

I would have thought that ignorant is the one who believe that a piece of matter like the brain is more important than the real I or the super conscious mind.

That's one of the things that is keeping you ignorant.

If the matter is more important than the consciousness then your computer should write a post for you.
No need to think Ton.
Isn't that beautiful? 

If we take in consideration only the physical aspect of the issue then it is obvious that nothing can be proved.

Lots of things can be proved by taking only the physical into consideration.  You're typing this on a computer or tablet somewhere and posting it to a website on the internet, aren't you?  That requires numerous layers of technology, from electrical power to microscopic computer circuits to cabling standards and mathematics and lots of things that we prove with only the physical world to study.  The best part is that no matter where you are or who you are or what culture you live in, science works the same way every time.  Religion, on the other hand?  Not so much.

The best part is that no matter where you are or who you are or what culture you live in......... but as far as you don't use your mind nothing will happen.
The computer will not be able to write something for you. 

How can something abstract as the consciousness can be proved in a physical way?

First, by realizing that it's not "abstract."  Second, by studying how changes to the brain affect a person's mind and personality.  By studying how the brain reacts to different stimuli.  By studying how environmental and emotional stresses produce similar and reproducible results.  I keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring it.  But as I've said before, this is your problem and not mine.  The world is leaving you behind, Rik.  Don't wait until you're dead to find out if you were right-- it'll be too late then.

So you should realize that is not abstract?
Gee Ton you should be the guru in the philosophy forum.
Over there people talk about high thinking.
I don't really think that i can follow you along these lines. 

[Tonus]

If you already got the evidence what's the need to reach a conclusion?

If you have evidence, it logically follows that you will reach a conclusion.  That's the idea.  Are you actually saying that evidence makes no difference to the conclusion you reach?  Because that would explain a lot of your posts.

If the consciousness is a state where is the real you?

What do you mean by "the real you"?  My personality?  That's a part of my mind, which is a function of the brain.  Consciousness describes your state of awareness.  If you can't differentiate between consciousness, the mind, and the personality, then maybe you should be doing some more reading and a lot less posting.

I certainly do Ton.

Your responses do not indicate this to be the case.

You keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Did i ascribe to you this or you said this?

I have never said that consciousness is a product of the brain.  Consciousness is a state.  Again, how can you get this stuff wrong when it is literally written down for you to check?

Those who had a real NDE clearly say that the consciousness or spirit soul leave the dead body so by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with souls you contradict yourself.

No.  Those who have had an NDE experienced a certain sensation, and described what they saw and heard.  People who have had an NDE induced by other means described the very same thing.  This is no different than having a dream.  Most people have dreams where we fly, but it doesn't mean we can fly in real life.

You may have learned what someone guess.
You certainly have NOT learn the truth.

I have been reading about what other people are learning, because they test their hypotheses and theories with experiments and research.  You, on the other hand, make one guess after another and insist that it is truth.  But you apparently don't even bother to think about whether your guesses make sense, much less plan experiments and test your guesses.  I think I'll put my faith in the guys who do more than toss darts at the wall.

Ton, Ton it is YOU that make claims not me and therefore it is YOU that got to back your claims up.
Didn't you claim that NDEs have nothing to do with souls?

Do you ever get any of these attributions right?  I said that testing and experimentation and research into NDEs have not turned up any evidence of souls or spirits, just the workings of the brain.  YOU are saying that it is proof of a soul or spirit.  Your only proof is the NDEs themselves, which research does NOT link to souls or spirits, only to brain states.  Therefore, you have NO proof.  You don't even have evidence to point to.

Science in this particular medical field boast time and time again that what they came up with was the solution.

That's not what you said.  You said that science claimed to have "got[ten] rid of malaria."  Show me where they made that claim.  I am accusing you of making that up.  Prove me wrong.

Thousand upon thousand of people in the present and in the past die and then came back to life (NDEs).

No, they didn't.  You do understand the definition of "near"?  Then again, maybe you don't, considering how loose you play with definitions.  Those people were NEAR death.  They never died.

A lot of them agree that God is there.

So?  Do they all describe meeting the exact same god, with the exact same message, so that we can tell for sure that they're meeting the one true god?  Or are their experiences heavily dependent on what they believe and what their culture describes as god and heaven?  Because if it's the latter... oops.

If the matter is more important than the consciousness then your computer should write a post for you.

With the advances in artificial intelligence, that day is probably nearer than we think.  And let's face it, if a computer was writing YOUR posts, they might make sense.

No need to think Ton.
Isn't that beautiful? 

That does seem to be your philosophy, yes.

The best part is that no matter where you are or who you are or what culture you live in......... but as far as you don't use your mind nothing will happen.
The computer will not be able to write something for you.

Like I said, give it time.  I can only imagine the fits that A.I. will cause you, as you try to determine if A.I. means that a computer has a conscious mind or soul.  One more barrier knocked down by science, this time for laughs.

So you should realize that is not abstract?

Yep.  It's not.  That word doesn't really make sense when applied to a state like consciousness.  What is so abstract about an on/off switch?

[Little Rik]

If you already got the evidence what's the need to reach a conclusion?

If you have evidence, it logically follows that you will reach a conclusion.  That's the idea.  Are you actually saying that evidence makes no difference to the conclusion you reach?  Because that would explain a lot of your posts.

I am saying that the evidence and the conclusion must match.
If your conclusion differ from the evidence then your conclusion is crap. 

If the consciousness is a state where is the real you?

What do you mean by "the real you"?  My personality?  That's a part of my mind, which is a function of the brain.  Consciousness describes your state of awareness.  If you can't differentiate between consciousness, the mind, and the personality, then maybe you should be doing some more reading and a lot less posting.

Why do some more reading when both the consciousness and the mind are just part of the same I.
It is all inside you not in the books.
Let us do one thing Ton.
You keep on reading your books and i keep on expanding my self with yoga and at the end let us see who got more consciousness.  

You keep on saying that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Did i ascribe to you this or you said this?

I have never said that consciousness is a product of the brain.  Consciousness is a state.  Again, how can you get this stuff wrong when it is literally written down for you to check?

Oh, Ton how sad.
You only say that the mind is a product of the brain so when you say that you probably mean that consciousness and mind are two separate thing.
Do you Ton?
Very interesting Ton.
So please explain what is the difference among the two.
By the way on 3 June when i write......
......The atheistic idea that the consciousness mind is a product of the brain will
have sooner or later be smashed in pieces......you didn't say that there is a difference between the two that is why i got the idea that
you understand that mind and consciousness are the same part of the same thing with the difference that they are just different layer of the same I.

Those who had a real NDE clearly say that the consciousness or spirit soul leave the dead body so by saying that NDEs have nothing to do with souls you contradict yourself.

No.  Those who have had an NDE experienced a certain sensation, and described what they saw and heard.  People who have had an NDE induced by other means described the very same thing.  This is no different than having a dream.  Most people have dreams where we fly, but it doesn't mean we can fly in real life.

If you are such an expert in NDEs why don't you explain why so many people see God and not Santa?  
Now is the time for you to read and learn a bit about NDEs.
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/...s_main.htm

You may have learned what someone guess.
You certainly have NOT learn the truth.

I have been reading about what other people are learning, because they test their hypotheses and theories with experiments and research.  You, on the other hand, make one guess after another and insist that it is truth.  But you apparently don't even bother to think about whether your guesses make sense, much less plan experiments and test your guesses.  I think I'll put my faith in the guys who do more than toss darts at the wall.

You see Ton, the problem with testing something abstract with something physical is not that easy.
Would you try to fix your plumbing pipes by calling an electrician or try to fix your electrical problems by
calling a plumber?
The same thing apply when you want to test something with the correct tools.
Physical can be tested with physical means and spiritual things with spiritual means.
Is this so difficult to understand?  

Ton, Ton it is YOU that make claims not me and therefore it is YOU that got to back your claims up.
Didn't you claim that NDEs have nothing to do with souls?

Do you ever get any of these attributions right?  I said that testing and experimentation and research into NDEs have not turned up any evidence of souls or spirits, just the workings of the brain.  YOU are saying that it is proof of a soul or spirit.  Your only proof is the NDEs themselves, which research does NOT link to souls or spirits, only to brain states.  Therefore, you have NO proof.  You don't even have evidence to point to.

Again, these researcher think that by physical means they can understand something spiritual.
Wrong tool once again Ton.  

Science in this particular medical field boast time and time again that what they came up with was the solution.

That's not what you said.  You said that science claimed to have "got[ten] rid of malaria."  Show me where they made that claim.  I am accusing you of making that up. Prove me wrong.

Opsh Ton, sorry for prove you wrong.

Recent malaria history is fraught with grand pronouncements that turned out to be baseless. "MALARIA VACCINE IS NEAR," announced a New York Times headline in 1984. "This is the last major hurdle," said one U.S. scientist quoted in the article. "There is no question now that we will have a vaccine. The rest is fine-tuning." Seven years of fine-tuning later, another Times headline summarized the result: "EFFORT TO FIGHT MALARIA APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED." In the late 1990s, Colombian immunologist Manuel Patarroyo claimed, with much media fanfare, that he had found the answer to malaria with his vaccine, SPf-66. Early results were tantalizing, but follow-up studies in Thailand showed it worked no better than a placebo.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/07...text6.html

Thousand upon thousand of people in the present and in the past die and then came back to life (NDEs).

No, they didn't.  You do understand the definition of "near"?  Then again, maybe you don't, considering how loose you play with definitions.  Those people were NEAR death.  They never died.

So you reckon that all those doctors that declared a patient dead are all impostors?
Didn't i said that you are hilarious?  

A lot of them agree that God is there.

So?  Do they all describe meeting the exact same god, with the exact same message, so that we can tell for sure that they're meeting the one true god?  Or are their experiences heavily dependent on what they believe and what their culture describes as god and heaven?  Because if it's the latter... oops.

Wrong again Ton.
Suppose you are God.
Different blokes pop up as they die whether it is a permanent death or an NDE.
Many of these blokes are not ready for Nirvana or paradise or Samadhi so you can't really
show your real face.
You only show what the blokes grow up with or at the moment believe.
Why God would force someone who is not 100% ready for Samadhi to make them change their mind?
That is why different NDEs see God in a different way which is most  suitable to their believe.

If the matter is more important than the consciousness then your computer should write a post for you.

With the advances in artificial intelligence, that day is probably nearer than we think.  And let's face it, if a computer was writing YOUR posts, they might make sense.

Your are guessing Ton.
After a million or so year that man is man (man&women) so far the human mind has always start the action first.
That the future will change all this is like hoping that a fart will be worth something.  

No need to think Ton.
Isn't that beautiful? 

That does seem to be your philosophy, yes

.


I have been trying to get some philosophical though out of you guys for the last few years but is like to find some gold up in the clouds.  

The best part is that no matter where you are or who you are or what culture you live in......... but as far as you don't use your mind nothing will happen.
The computer will not be able to write something for you.

Like I said, give it time.  I can only imagine the fits that A.I. will cause you, as you try to determine if A.I. means that a computer has a conscious mind or soul.  One more barrier knocked down by science, this time for laughs.

I give all the time Ton.
In the meantime i use my precious time to build up the inner self.  

So you should realize that is not abstract?

Yep.  It's not.  That word doesn't really make sense when applied to a state like consciousness.  What is so abstract about an on/off switch?

You know what Ton?
You should become a magician and show the people how smart you are.
After all nobody so far has ever been able to touch, smell or seen the consciousness.
I am sure you would become very famous.
Eh, don't forget about little Rik eh.
I gave you the tip after all.  

[Tonus]

I am saying that the evidence and the conclusion must match.
If your conclusion differ from the evidence then your conclusion is crap. 

Evidence and conclusion are two different things.  The evidence can help you reach a conclusion.  You are simply repeating what I said, but in a less intelligible manner.

Why do some more reading when both the consciousness and the mind are just part of the same I.

Because if you do some reading, you'll understand why you are wrong.

You keep on reading your books and i keep on expanding my self with yoga and at the end let us see who got more consciousness.

So you want me to continue to search out additional knowledge while you continue to strengthen the walls of your fortress of ignorance?  I'm happy to keep doing what I do, but why would you deliberately limit yourself that way?

You only say that the mind is a product of the brain so when you say that you probably mean that consciousness and mind are two separate thing.

I already explained this.  You reject common definitions for common words, and this allows you to create a reality where they mean something else.  Not.  My.  Problem.

By the way on 3 June when i write......
......The atheistic idea that the consciousness mind is a product of the brain will
have sooner or later be smashed in pieces......you didn't say that there is a difference between the two that is why i got the idea that you understand that mind and consciousness are the same part of the same thing with the difference that they are just different layer of the same I.

Then I am glad that I got this chance to clarify things, though it seems to be having no effect.  By the way, the understanding that the mind is a function of the brain is not an "atheistic idea."  It does not depend on atheism, it's just a conclusion reached based on evidence provided by experimentation and research.

If you are such an expert in NDEs why don't you explain why so many people see God and not Santa?

Why?  Because we are influenced by our cultural depictions of god and heaven.  We are inundated with images and descriptions of heaven as a bright place in the clouds, of god as a being of almost pure light, of heaven as a place where our dead friends and relatives await us.  For societies with different ideas about god and heaven, their NDEs will reflect those ideas instead.  It's not surprising when long-held cultural icons are exactly what people "see" when they enter a chaotic dream state like an NDE.

PS- I don't have to be an expert in NDEs.  I just need to read the work of people who have done research on the mind.  The information is available if you are willing to step outside of your bubble.

Now is the time for you to read and learn a bit about NDEs.
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/...s_main.htm

That site does not teach anything about NDEs.  It simply catalogs the various experiences.  For comparison, why don't you read and learn a bit about alien encounters:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/currentyeararchives.html

You see Ton, the problem with testing something abstract with something physical is not that easy.

Sure it is.  We see the results of conscious (and subconscious) thought in people all the time, because it's how we interact with one another.  Study the interactions under different conditions and in different environments, and you begin to understand how the mind works.  Study the physical effects on the brain of such mental activity, and you begin to map the mind onto the brain.

Again, these researcher think that by physical means they can understand something spiritual.

They're not studying something spiritual.  They're studying the brain, specifically the mind.

Opsh Ton, sorry for prove you wrong.

So there were two scientists who, ten years apart, felt that they were making progress on a malaria vaccine, and you consider this to be the same as "science said it got rid of malaria"?

You know, I don't think you are consciously misrepresenting things in order to support your beliefs.  I think that you've created a delusion and reinforced it so diligently that your own subconscious mind is misreading and misunderstanding what you read in order to protect your belief system.  You yourself admitted above that you'd rather turn inward for guidance than read books or learn from others.  You've placed yourself in a bubble that you constantly reinforce by shaping what you read to support you, even if it means twisting it into a different meaning.  It's a fascinating example of how you can train your subconscious to trap you within your beliefs.  An unhealthy example, to be sure.  But fascinating nonetheless.

So you reckon that all those doctors that declared a patient dead are all impostors?

Nope.  Just mistaken.

Wrong again Ton.
Suppose you are God.

See, this is what I mean.  You constantly ask for evidence for what I say, but everything you said after that line is made up.  You have zero evidence for it.  When you need for something to be true in order to maintain your belief system, you discard the need for evidence and simply accept whatever made-up story works best for you.

Your explanation is made up.  You have no evidence for it.  None.

Your are guessing Ton.

You say this right after a paragraph of completely made-up nonsense that you wrote to support an untenable belief.  But yes, when it comes to the development of artificial intelligence, I am making guesses.  Educated and informed guesses, but guesses nonetheless.

I have been trying to get some philosophical though out of you guys for the last few years but is like to find some gold up in the clouds.

I meant your personal philosophy.  Your problems in the philosophy forum seem to have more to do with your self-serving definition of what constitutes philosophy.

In the meantime i use my precious time to build up the inner self.

You mean to fortify the walls of your bubble.  So much effort for the sole purpose of keeping yourself ignorant.  That's sad.

I am sure you would become very famous.

The things I've been telling you about the mind and the brain are the results of research done by others for more than a century.  None of this is new.  It may seem new to you, but you admit that you spend your time building your inner self at the expense of learning anything from the rest of the world.  Cutting yourself off from knowledge just to keep a delusion going seems self-defeating, but it's your life.