BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON

[mr_keybay]

 

ADC experiment - advanced-death-checker

In order to understand what death is, we must ask ourselves two fundamental questions: what is death? Is it really the moment when life would cease to exist, the end of everything? What happens to consciousness when our organism stops its vital functions? Weeks, days, minutes would remain to listen us while we face the questions with extreme rationality, doing so we could even guess many aspects characterizing the life itself. For the science, according to the current knowledge on the merits, the definition of death indicates the permanent cessation - moreover scientifically irreversible - of all vital functions that allow to identify the individual "state" in our ordinary dimension. Noted for centuries, an indelible dogma is maintained throughout science without further interest to personally verify what can happen beyond the so-called "border" if not by experiments trying to prove what are our hypothetical visions involving the phenomenon. That’s what the science explains in the matter. Numerous cases show that individuals who died within 48 hours inexplicably resume their life activities in a relatively short period of time, typically before the final exhumation process. Many such cases also arose in antiquity, raising concerns about the planned burials possibly on an "apparent" dead body. Keeping to this consideration, a question would arise: are we undoubtedly certain of the complete death of a subject while existing similar testimonies, as described? To answer, we must look at a few elements. The only methodologies available for the declaration of "death" are temporal-based distances from the beginning of cessation on all the activities indispensable to life habitually observable provided from legislative norms which can be extremely variable depending on the belonging Nation; that means that nowadays there is still no absolute scientific certainty capable to establish the appropriate timings in order to carry out the classification, nevertheless the final concept is exactly described as "legal death". Each Nation has timelines set by laws based on its scientific knowledge on the matter and, possibly, influenced by its own cultures and in some cases connected with strictly social ethics. Since there is no absolute knowledge about the phenomenon there may be a risk of falling into the ravine without even realizing it. The called human event "apparent deaths" could be the example of notable anomalies and frankly terrible. If life could fall - as it seemed to be – in ordinary functioning states, although rare, in the most typical cases, contained within a time interval defined as "acceptable" before the final classification, what could deny that the phenomenon could actually occur outside the same boundary on which our reference looks to be made?
Because of the current paradigm we remain with the idea that it cannot occur beyond the default temporal boundary, which takes place before a complete abandonment; it is also stated that it is not scientifically possible for a body to return to its ordinary activity due to the phenomenon of near biological decomposition, and everything that would happen in this circumstance is solely caused by this. Both assertions are mildly contradictory: if the first statement says that there may be the non-absolute-certainty about the death, the second - whether real - persists in believing that every phenomenon beyond the time range - which, as stated, prefixed precisely by law, therefore presumably non-absolute - is associated with biological decomposition where all studies seem to focus on. In fact, a sort of action in absolutely wanting to demonstrate a hypothetical vision on something illogical born from a mere conviction. In other words, if we simply considered that there may be reversible states regardless of the fixed previews, the deduction that "premature exhumations" are likely to be made would be very obvious as some testimonies seem to have reported, among which even during antiquity the topic was still debated. The time field in which we can know about this is particularly short before losing all contacts with the deceased patient during the burial, where he will be hermetically locked up as "convinced" that there can be no returns as they are no longer considerable. We can represent the current reflection using a small analogy: let’s imagine to leave our pet - obviously only to report a reflective method and not to agree on the specific action - on an island completely lost and very far from us; how could we know what it is doing when we ask ourselves the question? In fact, we could not know. Once this is reached, it would no longer make sense to take for granted all our assumptions about what our "beloved animal" can carry out in that place – as mentioned – largely distant from our position. Therefore, returning to the clear implication, it seems impossible to validate with certainty the beginning of a death process, at least the exact starting moment, on legal definitions based on scientific knowledge precisely not absolute, not yet proven and still up for various researches. Some testimonies of exhumations show evidence about lack of biological decomposition, scientifically expected, in the bodies of the deceased after many years of the same burial and from the same death, moreover making the phenomenon questionable if only in terms of duration. Sticking to the facts if the gases, oxygen, could not penetrate the inside of a completely closed "cube" then a similar scenario could be reproduced in similar conditions, especially if "trying" to correlate the lack or (delayed) decomposition to a very low presence of gas o2 inside the burial environment, still proving questionable when trying to apply the same explanation to a biologically living body. Assuming a sudden reactivation, for some unknown reason, of life related functions
– the individual would not be able to communicate with us. In other words, if someone ever "decided" to wake up inside the sarcophagus he would be unable to further communicate, moreover without the necessary gas to keep him alive in the ordinary state thus returning to the previous one becoming a cycle automatically without anyone knowing ever. On the other hand, if the o2 gas were on the contrary in large (sufficient) quantities, the subject could regain life’s functions while remaining in a state of "life" but still unable to communicate as well as probably entering to additional unknown states. That such events can happen outside our horizon that we refuse to understand and accept is perhaps possible, yet we simply struggle to integrate these reasonings into our common lives. In the ordinary state, that is, what we call life, we are used to consider the state of deep coma, as well as the vegetative state that follows it, but not in the death. Generally, the most typical action is to carefully observe particular movements by a deceased body trying to ascertain its being alive by thanatological analysis, however, a body in a state of coma does not possess at least evident mobility, so if hypothetically it came to such a condition it would not be sufficient to look for – in strict terms – movements only. We could remotely imagine what would happen if a deceased resumed life related functions while remaining in an identical state; it would be, at the present time, impossible to know without in-depth researches. Therefore we "agree" to include the state of vegetative coma in the ordinary system, but we completely exclude it as we are convinced that nothing can happen beyond the marked limit by conquering the scientific terminology of "irreversibility". Examining the existing dynamics of the various procedures applied on lifeless bodies, in our trainings we operate in the following way: the patient stops emitting his life signs during the treatments, the medical team will be waiting for the next upcoming minutes and, once passed, he will be moved to a place for legal observation (eg. morgue) for the next hours and as a last step will be prepared to be buried. This is what happens in the last treatment procedures. In the final stage we lose all form of contact with the deceased individual, this seems evident and preventing us from knowing its particular course. Furthermore, misdiagnoses of death in particular hospital centers cannot be excluded despite the fact that they might correctly follow the authoritarian indications provided by the institutions knowing the complexity of the topic. To this loss of information, having therefore deduced that there are, at least “been”, encounters of reversibility in apparently sporadic cases, the idea of the ADC experiment is to exactly eliminate this time range imposed by laws by placing continuous surveillance even after a burial on the body of the deceased is done.

- Introduction
The purpose of the ADC experiment is to implement a constant monitoring on the body of the deceased despite the official confirmation of "legal death" in order to further investigate the possibility of sudden reactivations, as unforeseen or, to be clearer, completely "random", even later the extreme of the established time limit. The experiment will probably require the approval of legislative entities although it was intended to be carried out in amplitude and not in small samples, thus increasing the chances of unexpected occurs.

- NOTES
Such experiment may result as unethically and/or non-legislatively compliant according to current knowledge about the treated phenomenon by emphasizing that research should not be carried out for profit purposes as such, but for purposes of pure discovery. Certain conclusions can constitute a drastic source of danger in various scientific, political, religious, ethical and institutional social sectors, generating possible imbalances and subsequently deliriums. The research is absolutely not aimed at an open public, being closed to disclosure in case it is performed. The author of this manuscript does not assume responsibilities for any consequence to the practices indicated below, therefore remaining anonymous.

- Tools
A vital monitoring kit is needed as the available functionality of transmission and remote control. The transmitting devices must operate thanks to rechargeable energy systems, managed and replaced periodically by the agencies in charge of the "maintenance" of the deceased or anyone who may be present in the place. A reception system containing a database where all the identifying information will be stored and with them a tracking graph on the positive activities collected must be arranged, which can be placed wherever you prefer within the transmission field for the sole purpose of reporting and displaying the information sent by the remote monitoring devices. Radio transmission technologies can be exploited for the reception of information,
basically an entire apparatus capable of receiving information obtained remotely.

- Procedure
To carry out the experiment the following parameters can be obtained: heart rhythm rate, blood pressure and blood saturation. It can be also included other parameters such as brain activity through the typical electroencephalogram but requiring additional equipment. The monitoring devices will be installed into the defunct environment while all parameters quoted will be exclusively checked by doctors with high competence in Anesthesiology and Resuscitation. With the use of a monitoring system equipped with remote transmission inversely set connected to the subject, it will record all the positive activities emitted by the cardiovascular system or any system connected to it by capturing any clinical state belonging, of course, to our ordinary dimension (eg. coma or not) by providing information relating to their life condition. Suspicious positive activities will be stored in a database associated with the personal identity in the reception system additionally using an alarm specifically programmed to urgently report "relevant" graphic movements (continuously positives). A software capable of performing such an operation must be developed keeping constant monitoring active so allowing the tracking of any event of "return" in our ordinary state and the evolution of the entire process in progress by reporting anomalies. Followed and validated findings, such as an unexpected activation of the electroencephalic system and/or the cardiovascular system resulting in a "return" in the current level of reality, the competent participants will be able to revive the individual if necessary. Despite the preliminary objectives of the ADC experiment intend to collect information relating to events that may occur outside the perspective horizons present with only classical-medicine purposes, not metaphysics, once the individual ever "returned" in the active biological conditions the same participants will be able to submit the examinee to specific questionnaires in order to identify possible similarities regarding perceptions of reality experienced during the previous conditions potentially linked to altered states of consciousness,
as represented by NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences). The known term is enclosed for "Experiences close to death" due to biological activations remanifested within the time lapse, then recognized and considered as such, subsequently used to be combined with a medically reversible condition. Any subject experienced levels of reality not to order even in actual death or identical to that reported by the NDE, it would open a new knowledge of the phenomenon of death and what happens to it additionally making the terminology of "NDE" meaningless as it is used not only to consider the particular experiences lived, but also to be categorized to a - as stated - clinical condition considered reversible losing meaning if analytical evidence appeared in the exam following the functional cancellation of the term to describe and twenty recurrent "close" to death, but exactly being part of it.

- Conclusions
By carrying out the experiment, the enrichment of current knowledge would become concretely predictable, impossible to deny how unexpected conclusions can change the conceptions of life and its destination. One's own philosophies can simply be the fruit of such a reflection that can be articulated in experiment. Considering psychoanalysis, it would not be surprising that such a phenomenon as the departure from the unknown simply belongs to the mere human-biological disposition if allowed to say so, because unknown is what hurts. As we remove what is bad, so we abandon what is of bad appearance, because the higher our "lifeblood" is, the greater we will be magnetized to the same as everything that dissociates it is not included to the "plans" it reserves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The unknown does not follow our hypotheses, our hypotheses should follow the unknown"
"Although I leave, I will not close the book"

Edited April 7, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Genady]

The first statement says,

"In order to understand what death is, we must ask ourselves ...: what is death?"

Do I need to read the rest of this long post?

[mr_keybay]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

The first statement says,

"In order to understand what death is, we must ask ourselves ...: what is death?"

Do I need to read the rest of this long post?

Definitely up to you.

[Phi for All]

Can we have a brief overview, please? If you only had two fairly short sentences to describe your idea as clearly as you can, or if I gave you twenty seconds to give me your best elevator pitch, what would you tell me?  

 

Edit to add: There's a 5 post limit on your first day to weed out robot spammers, so thanks in advance for coming back tomorrow.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Phi for All

[TheVat]

Looks like someone watched "Flatliners" one time too many.  

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Noted for centuries, an indelible dogma is maintained throughout science without further interest to personally verify what can happen beyond the so-called "border" if not by experiments trying to prove what are our hypothetical visions involving the phenomenon.

This is incorrect. I decline further climb on that wall of text.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This is incorrect. I decline further climb on that wall of text.

Let's not send the wrong message. It's not a wall of text that represents a lengthy commitment to learning. It's a wall of leafy green word salad that's difficult to chew because it has very few recognizable scientific definitions in it. And many of the words don't really go together, or were perhaps abused by a thesaurus, like "indelible dogma". 

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Numerous cases show that individuals who died within 48 hours inexplicably resume their life activities in a relatively short period of time, typically before the final exhumation process.

Do you have any evidence or sources for this claim?

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's a wall of leafy green word salad that's difficult to chew because it has very few recognizable scientific definitions in it.

Well, no wonder I couldn't get a handhold!

[mr_keybay]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Can we have a brief overview, please? If you only had two fairly short sentences to describe your idea as clearly as you can, or if I gave you twenty seconds to give me your best elevator pitch, what would you tell me?  

 

Edit to add: There's a 5 post limit on your first day to weed out robot spammers, so thanks in advance for coming back tomorrow.

I would tell you that nowadays there is still no specific evidence to prove that the body of a deceased person can never return to its previous life-state considering the phenomenologies observed, in addition to the strange health directives currently in force as it's clearly specified in the first post. The existing statements seem contradictory: if there have been reports of people coming back to life inexplicably after the declaration of death but within a short time range and, as mentioned, "inexplicably" - my question is: what could prevent the same phenomenon from happening present outside the pre-established time interval (eg. after the burial)? While this is the core question, the idea is simply to place died individuals under continuous surveillance even after the declaration of death, therefore after the burial, taking note of the above considerations. However, if you already have an answer to all my doubts, especially the "core" one, as I deduce, I assure you that you would make me feel better.

 

15 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have any evidence or sources for this claim?

You can find all such described cases in the literature, which are pretty-well documented. You should probably investigate more about human's literature regarding the death if you have no idea of what I am referring to.

 

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Let's not send the wrong message. It's not a wall of text that represents a lengthy commitment to learning. It's a wall of leafy green word salad that's difficult to chew because it has very few recognizable scientific definitions in it. And many of the words don't really go together, or were perhaps abused by a thesaurus, like "indelible dogma". 

No one is enforcing you to stay at this thread. If you feel like the treated discussion doesn't really fit your competences, your knowledge, your interests - feel free to leave. I stay open for any further question related to the topic, I will try my best to answer. Furthermore I don't see anything wrong in using a particular lexical style, as you are pointing, and additionally I can - like I explained above - summarize the idea in one sentence and therefore one logical implication. Please read the previous quote.

 

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This is incorrect. I decline further climb on that wall of text.

Could you kindly provide me any actual proof that the statement you quoted is actually incorrect, please? If it's something I am not aware of, I would gladly appreciate to learn it and eventually rephrasing all the mentioned concepts, just curiosity in me. Thank you.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Bufofrog]

38 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

You can find all such described cases in the literature, which are pretty-well documented. You should probably investigate more about human's literature regarding the death if you have no idea of what I am referring to.

So you don't have any evidence for this claim.  If you can't find evidence for your claim, I am certainly not going to do it for you.

I will have to assume your great-aunt Clara told you dead people come back to life and for some reason you believed her. 

[mr_keybay]

46 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

So you don't have any evidence for this claim.  If you can't find evidence for your claim, I am certainly not going to do it for you.

I will have to assume your great-aunt Clara told you dead people come back to life and for some reason you believed her. 

I am not sure if you have any kind of bias towards wikipedia, the public encyclopedia, but here's documented the "evidence" you are asking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

If this is recognized by science as a "syndrome" without further care it's possibly true, would you contact the author of the article saying that you do not have any kind of occur to what's written there and therefore asking for censure. Is that enough evidence to show you that there have been indeed cases, in which the science apparently has also a proper definition for them? Also since you are looking for evidence, do you have any against-evidence regarding your claim? I mean, since you are looking for evidence you likely know what scientifically heppens to the death I would assume, am I correct? Therefore not coherent with what science (medicine) says in the matter, especially when it comes to consciousness - but that's another topic. Please answer me this logical question: if science is sure about how/when death actually begins after someone stops emitting the life signs, why would be there still a time range before someone can be actually exhumed as for the final deal? Thank you.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

Lazarus syndrome has been well documented since the 1980's, and a number of cases were reported long before that. In fact, in the 19th century, there was such widespread fear of being buried alive tht people had bell-ropes installed in their coffin, just in case.

However, this is a cardiac condition: the heart resumes beating after a period of unresponsiveness.

These days, death is not pronounced on the basis or heart and lung activity alone, but on brain-wave activity. Once the brain stops, it doesn't start again. That doesn't rule out the possibility of incorrect pronouncements of death, which is why people are not buried immediately - indeed, even the autopsy is not begun immediately - they arrive at the morgue. Medical personnel tend to keep trying to preserve life as long as there is sign of life to preserve. 

I don't agree that it's a good idea to bury people and dig them up again. Cremation is more definitive. 

[mr_keybay]

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Lazarus syndrome has been well documented since the 1980's, and a number of cases were reported long before that. In fact, in the 19th century, there was such widespread fear of being buried alive tht people had bell-ropes installed in their coffin, just in case.

However, this is a cardiac condition: the heart resumes beating after a period of unresponsiveness.

These days, death is not pronounced on the basis or heart and lung activity alone, but on brain-wave activity. Once the brain stops, it doesn't start again. That doesn't rule out the possibility of incorrect pronouncements of death, which is why people are not buried immediately - indeed, even the autopsy is not begun immediately - they arrive at the morgue. Medical personnel tend to keep trying to preserve life as long as there is sign of life to preserve. 

I don't agree that it's a good idea to bury people and dig them up again. Cremation is more definitive. 

Everything you are stating in this reply is obvious in a long time, it's nothing new to me.

"That doesn't rule out the possibility of incorrect pronouncements of death, which is why people are not buried immediately - indeed, even the autopsy is not begun immediately - they arrive at the morgue. Medical personnel tend to keep trying to preserve life as long as there is sign of life to preserve. "

Exactly, which is interesting. In fact, after the burial there's no way to check whether the cardiac / brain activity will restore its usual activity, not as it was checked before the burial with a specific monitoring. Am I correct? Would you be able to check someone's brain activity once hermetically locked? Certainly not. That's why the science indeed has a temporal "border" in which any kind of surveillance will be ended later.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

In fact, after the burial there's no way to check whether the cardiac / brain activity will restore its usual activity,

That's right. If you were a rich and powerful ancient Egyptian, you could be quite certain this wouldn't happen, because your brain would have sucked out through a straw and discarded, while your heart and liver were lovingly preserved in separate sealed jars. Cremation accomplishes the same peace of mind more efficiently.

At some point, we need to terminate surveillance of the dead, or we'd all end up living in one endless, limitless Stephen King novel.

[mr_keybay]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's right. If you were a rich and powerful ancient Egyptian, you could be quite certain this wouldn't happen, because your brain would have sucked out through a straw and discarded, while your heart and liver were lovingly preserved in separate sealed jars. Cremation accomplishes the same peace of mind more efficiently.

At some point, we need to terminate surveillance of the dead, or we'd all end up living in one endless, limitless Stephen King novel.

So then, if you are actually stating what you are stating, is that indirectly proving what I logically deduced in the text above, am I correct? We are not speaking about literature, nor political, nor ethics. We are speaking about science; and as far as I know, science must not go through opinions, through politics, through bias - but through facts or, eventually, logical assumptions. It is the most impartial discipline I ever known. Am I correct? Regarding a scientific answer, nothing seems to prove that a life-state return is impossible, am I correct?

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

So then, if you are actually stating what you are stating,

I rarely do otherwise.

18 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

is that indirectly proving what I logically deduced in the text above, am I correct?

I have no idea. As previously stated, as I stated, I don't attempt to decipher solids walls of text. If you present your thesis succinctly, I will consider it.

 

20 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Regarding a scientific answer, nothing seems to prove that a life-state return is impossible, am I correct?

I suggested two ways to make sure.

[mr_keybay]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I rarely do otherwise.

I have no idea. As previously stated, as I stated, I don't attempt to decipher solids walls of text. If you present your thesis succinctly, I will consider it.

 

I suggested two ways to make sure.

If you are interested in the thesis you might start the reading from the introduction part skipping the topic introduction, since it became pretty obvious after the last discussion.

[Peterkin]

There are three less invasive ways to be sure: Have all the up-to-date  brain-monitoring devices and competent personnel to read them; keep the corpse under observation until rigor has come and passed (about 24 hours is customary before post-mortem examination commences) or keep it in a secure, but not airtight room until a satisfactory state of decomposition convinces you that it is, in fat, dead. 

1 minute ago, mr_keybay said:

If you are interested in the thesis

Not really.

[mr_keybay]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are three less invasive ways to be sure: Have all the up-to-date  brain-monitoring devices and competent personnel to read them; keep the corpse under observation until rigor has come and passed (about 24 hours is customary before post-mortem examination commences) or keep it in a secure, but not airtight room until a satisfactory state of decomposition convinces you that it is, in fat, dead. 

If you had a read to my thesis you would clearly realize that everything you are claiming has been specified thousands of times, at least in the experiment part. And as for the "(about 24 hours is customary before post-mortem examination commences)" is what I was previously calling "tempoal range", which is obvious and from there all my doubts started from.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

Good! Then the subject has been well and truly covered and can be put to rest. In a mausoleum, if you want to keep visiting and taking its pulse. 

[mr_keybay]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Good! Then the subject has been well and truly covered and can be put to rest. In a mausoleum, if you want to keep visiting and taking its pulse. 

If you think my thesis is worthless reading I wonder why you would post such your unnecessary comments, even offensive for that matter. At the beginning of topic without knowing the subject of the thread even. I think I tried to give all the best answers I could, and since you made only satirical remarks I don't think the conversation can follow without degenerating in something toxic, which isn't my purpose anyway. Have a good luck.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, mr_keybay said:

If you think my thesis is worthless reading I wonder why you would post such your unnecessary comments, even offensive for that matter.

You make so many bad assumptions while praising your own "logic"! Nobody said "worthless reading". The comments are only "unnecessary" because you disagree with them and refuse to consider them. The comments aren't "offensive" since they're attacking your idea and your writing style, NOT YOU PERSONALLY. 

One of the situations we face a lot here is robot posters. As I mentioned, you have an overly verbose style that tends to clutter up what you're trying to convey, and we're instantly suspicious.

You've made up a lot of terms which you don't bother to explain, and it makes reading your ideas a bit of a slog. You make claims about software that needs to be developed but it's clear you're assuming it hasn't been already. Coupled with your assumptions that nobody had done what you're suggesting, you've developed this idea that we need to test something until it gives us the results we're hoping for, and that's really questionable methodology.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

I am not sure if you have any kind of bias towards wikipedia, the public encyclopedia, but here's documented the "evidence" you are asking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

I see, so you are not actually talking about someone who has died and then came back to life.  That makes much more sense.

[mr_keybay]

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You make so many bad assumptions while praising your own "logic"! Nobody said "worthless reading". The comments are only "unnecessary" because you disagree with them and refuse to consider them. The comments aren't "offensive" since they're attacking your idea and your writing style, NOT YOU PERSONALLY. 

One of the situations we face a lot here is robot posters. As I mentioned, you have an overly verbose style that tends to clutter up what you're trying to convey, and we're instantly suspicious.

You've made up a lot of terms which you don't bother to explain, and it makes reading your ideas a bit of a slog. You make claims about software that needs to be developed but it's clear you're assuming it hasn't been already. Coupled with your assumptions that nobody had done what you're suggesting, you've developed this idea that we need to test something until it gives us the results we're hoping for, and that's really questionable methodology.

I am not sure what kind of "commnents" you are referring to but most everything I read isn't attacking my "idea" either, rather just three-four laughing smiles at something they explicitly revealed not even want to read because of the length. Regarding the lexical style, I am sorry you don't like it while I don't see anything wrong in using it. I would be indeed glad to answer whatever you deem hard to understand from the text but the community hasn't showed any interest so I don't see how I could be even helpful. Feel free to point out to me all the "term" that you find hard to understand, I will try to explain. What kind of attacks are critcizing my idea? Can you please remark them to me? Is there any construction base to "attack" my idea except the "I don't agree with what you are saying" without any scientific reason or interest in the thread? Additionally I am not trying to make my "logic" as the best one available and I was simply responding to the satirical comments in the same way how they have been phrased, if the conversation had different tons I would have done differently, naturally.

32 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I see, so you are not actually talking about someone who has died and then came back to life.  That makes much more sense.

"It's also the spontaneous return of cardiac activity after pronounced dead."

I am not sure if you are actually kidding or attempting to be ironical, but it's well written in the page I linked to you at the very first lines of the text. Instead, if your question was rather meant to ask about possible mistakes about the possible announcement of deaths - that's indeed a good question, in fact it might be possible so at this point we would call it "no exactly dead", as you specified, because of the not-heppened decomposition yet if by "death" you implicitly mean decomposition as well.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay