Well clearly according to you, nothing I post is of any interest. I have asked you several times to lay of the childish antics and get back to the debate and you cower and take refuge in your argument of:

"I cant debate with you because you wont allow me to compartmentalize and label you as far as it relates your personal beliefs"

I am here waiting, any time you would like to speak calmly and rationally as it relates to the initial discussion (I didn't even enter into it as a debate) and address the actual issue, go for it, sweet thing.

I am always calm and rational, it is just that sometimes I break out in uncontrollable fits of laughter.

I can't help it, its who I am.

But seriously..

Clearly I hurt your feelings when I told you that the debates you get involved in just don't interest me, but I thought I explained that to you. I just don't have time to be interested in everything, and I don't think anyone should take that personal or get insulted by that.

I have, on several occasions, (and in several posts) told you why I did not like your "cut and paste" "scientific" 'explanation' of NDE's and that it did not reference any real or specific scientific studies aimed at proving the existence or non existence of an after life, and I have not had the time to search the internet for any such proof or studies that focus on that question.

Since you will not commit to your position on this single subject of NDE's, I have to assume that your authority and opinion is what you posted, (even though they were not your own words,) and that you are taking the stand that NDE's and OBE's are merely a delusion of the brain caused by lack of oxygen or what ever.

If you do not take this position then there is no point in having a debate about it, for clearly a true or worthy debate requires two opposing positions.

That is why I do insist that you state your position on just this one subject before I spend my time presenting my side of the coin.

BUT If your point, as you have said, is simply that you think everyone should "look at both sides of the coin," then I totally agree with that point and that means we are in agreement, and there is no reason to debate that point.

So, are we in agreement or not? Was that your point or not?

~~ Or are you willing to take a position on the subject of NDE's that they are mere delusions of a dieing brain and continue this discussion?

I don't mind debating something if you state your position, but I won't spend my time on a debate if you are unclear on your position.

This is NOT an attempt to label you as you seem to think, I just would like to know both positions before I engage in debates.

I await your answer.

JB

Well clearly you and I define "calm and rational" very differently. I attempted to assert that modern medicine can offer theories as to why this phenomena occurs, there are parallels and similarities amongst many individuals, and the basic physiological components that can manifest themselves in these various perception distortions and effects. For whatever reason, Im assuming because I hit a nerve in some respect as it relates specifically to your own personal comfort zone, you ran a muck and the rest is history. I clearly want nothing to do with you and will probably spend the rest of my time on these forums avoiding you like the plaque.

My feelings generally are not hurt by irrational, anonymous folks on internet relay chat interfaces who go around making grand sweeping generalizations, asserting that they know everything there is to know on a particular subject matter, and that modern medicine and science is completely impotent in all of its attempts to further understand the human brain.

JB, it is not my responsibility nor desire to sit here and look up various documents and articles for your inspection. Billy already offered an excellent video but Im afraid you have been too busy arguing and posting rolling head graphics to view it. I was not presenting this information to derail your theory or to imply that you are wrong. You need to let go of that as this is what is creating this ridiculous argument. I was merely offering a different position and an explanation that would account for WHY exactly it is not advisable that we simply assert our own theories with out looking at ALL available facts and data. I just don't know how else to explain this to you. Do I now need to present it in interpretive dance? That's my dancing "modern medicine banana". He is not here to hurt or scare you but to offer you another mechanism of study.

A simple answer would have sufficed.

So, I will take this rant to mean that you are not prepared nor do you desire to continue to discuss or debate the issue of NDE's because you have refused to take a position on the subject.

Therefore I will assume that you were just making a point that you think people should "look at both sides of the coin" in any issue, in which case, I agree with you on that point.

We are in agreement then. Peace.

Discussion now closed.

ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) — The University of Southampton is launching the world's largest-ever study of near-death experiences this week.

The AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study is to be launched by the Human Consciousness Project of the University of Southampton - an international collaboration of scientists and physicians who have joined forces to study the human brain, consciousness and clinical death.

The study is led by Dr Sam Parnia, an expert in the field of consciousness during clinical death, together with Dr Peter Fenwick and Professors Stephen Holgate and Robert Peveler of the University of Southampton. Following a successful 18-month pilot phase at selected hospitals in the UK, the study is now being expanded to include other centres within the UK, mainland Europe and North America.

"Contrary to popular perception," Dr Parnia explains, "death is not a specific moment. It is a process that begins when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working and the brain ceases functioning - a medical condition termed cardiac arrest, which from a biological viewpoint is synonymous with clinical death.

"During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of death are present. There then follows a period of time, which may last from a few seconds to an hour or more, in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in restarting the heart and reversing the dying process. What people experience during this period of cardiac arrest provides a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process."

A number of recent scientific studies carried out by independent researchers have demonstrated that 10-20 per cent of people who go through cardiac arrest and clinical death report lucid, well structured thought processes, reasoning, memories and sometimes detailed recall of events during their encounter with death.

During the AWARE study, doctors will use sophisticated technology to study the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest. At the same time, they will test the validity of out of body experiences and claims of being able to 'see' and 'hear' during cardiac arrest.

The AWARE study will be complemented by the BRAIN-1 (Brain Resuscitation Advancement International Network - 1) study, in which the research team will conduct a variety of physiological tests in cardiac arrest patients, as well as cerebral monitoring techniques that aim to identify methods to improve the medical and psychological care of patients who have undergone cardiac arrest.

Dr Parnia will formally announce the launch of the AWARE study at an international symposium to be held at the United Nations on September 11.