Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 09, 2015, 18:18 (3206 days ago) @ David Turell

Romansh: The bit in red is a huge fallacy. 
> > > 
> > > David: And how do you know this? 
> > 
> > Romansh: Because you used therefore incorrectly.
> > 
> > I can't find me keys, I have looked for them everywhere using the latest methods. Therefore they don't exist,
> > A logical fallacy.
> 
> David: I consider your response a neat ploy. I said: 'every test available to medical science' meaning looking at brain function by tests which the medical profession is convinced can show if the brain is at all functional or not. We are discussing events in which there is no demonstrable function. You might claim that there is function we do not know about, but there is no evidence of such function, so it is best to work with known evidence, isn't it?
> 
> > > 
> > > David: But you are guy who asked for references. Why?
> > 
> > Romansh Did I not ask about ADEs? They are called NDEs for a reason.
> 
> David: Another ploy. You know full well ADE's are impossible, which is why politely I didn't respond previously. The physical conditions for a person to have NDE's are a 'will die' state unless reversed. That is the closest we can get and report results. And I know you know that. Can we have a discussion without word games?-I note you are not pursuing the issue of NDE's further. Nowhere to go?