BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

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?

No theory is ever proved in science. 

However, we have a pretty good theory of what constitutes death, viz. permanent cessation of all brain activity. None of the examples in the Lazarus syndrome article represent anyone coming back to life after brain death. There are cases in which the heart can stop and then resume, and so long as the brain is not starved of oxygen completely during this time  a resuscitation may be possible. If it is starved of oxygen, there will be progressive brain damage, eventually sufficient to prevent resuscitation at all, generally within minutes of the circulation stopping. (There have been cases involving low temperatures, in which someone can survive longer, due to the brain being cooled so much that its oxygen requirement drops, but these are rare and are explained by our current knowledge in the relevant science.)   

There are no well-attested cases, so far as I know, of anyone at ambient temperature returning to life after all brain and heart activity has been stopped for hours. If you believe differently, it is up to you to provide the evidence, not for us to somehow prove the absence of it.

(That's because science does not require us to spend time trying to prove the absence of fairies, pink unicorns or other alleged phenomena for which no evidence has been produced.)

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by exchemist

[Bufofrog]

30 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I am not sure if you are actually kidding or attempting to be ironical

Neither, the people in the article were not actually dead, I noticed that one or two posters had pointed this out to you.

 

30 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

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

No need for decomposition, just actually dead.  I know of no case where a person who has died and come back to life.  I know there are Reader Digest stories like "I Was Dead For 5 Minutes" but dead people don't come back to life in reality.

[mr_keybay]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No theory is ever proved in science. 

However, we have a pretty good theory of what constitutes death, viz. permanent cessation of all brain activity. None of the examples in the Lazarus syndrome article represent anyone coming back to life after brain death. There are cases in which the heart can stop and then resume, and so long as the brain is not starved of oxygen completely during this time  a resuscitation may be possible. If it is starved of oxygen, there will be progressive brain damage, eventually sufficient to prevent resuscitation at all, generally within minutes of the circulation stopping. (There have been cases involving low temperatures, in which someone can survive longer, due to the brain being cooled so much that its oxygen requirement drops, but these are rare and are explained by our current knowledge in the relevant science.)   

There are no well-attested cases, so far as I know, of anyone at ambient temperature returning to life after all brain and heart activity has been stopped for hours. If you believe differently, it is up to you to provide the evidence, not for us to somehow prove the absence of it.

(That's because science does not require us to spend time trying to prove the absence of fairies, pink unicorns or other alleged phenomena for which no evidence has been produced.)

 

May I ask you what do you mean by "brain death"? If you are talking about the physical decomposition by "death" it's something, if you are talking about a flat electroencephalogram curve it's something else. Both are definitely different things.

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

May I ask you what do you mean by "brain death"?

 

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

However, we have a pretty good theory of what constitutes death, viz. permanent cessation of all brain activity.

 

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

May I ask you what do you mean by "brain death"? If you are talking about the physical decomposition by "death" it's something, if you are talking about a flat electroencephalogram curve it's something else. Both are definitely different things.

Physical decomposition, which, as I've pointed out, occurs in a matter of minutes after the circulation has stopped, except in a few highly exceptional circumstances. Permanent cessation of all brain activity is a pretty good indicator of this, having the advantage that you don't need to open the skull. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by exchemist

[Peterkin]

Yes, it is known to happen that someone, even a certified medical doctor, makes an incorrect determination of death. Human error is far less common than it was in the 19th and early 20th century, when cardio-pulmonary were the only criteria. We have more sophisticated instruments an can measure more subtle activity. Also, because these phenomena (semblance of death for various reasons) are now known and medical practitioners are alert to the possibility.   (Unlike the movies, where any passer-by can say, "Too late; he's gone" and the victim is buried next morning, we're quite vigilant nowadays.) But it can still happen. 

And very rarely, even modern instruments fail to detect very faint signs of life in a patient who is comatose, hypothermic or extensively damaged, as in an explosion or fall from a great height. Such a patient would usually be monitored and checked again for life-signs over a period of time. 

I don't see your problem summarized in an accessible form.  

[mr_keybay]

Just now, Bufofrog said:

 

 

Brain activity monitored by proper machines or by "lack of brain activity" as because of the decomposition? Once again, different things. As far as I could read it seems you agreed to the fact that decomposition will not start right away. 

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Brain activity monitored by proper machines or by "lack of brain activity" as because of the decomposition? Once again, different things

No, they're not. Decomposition starts as soon as tissue no longer receives nourishment. You just don't overtly notice it until the microorganisms get to work. 

There seem to be some gaps in your understanding of the subject, just as shown in your responses here.

My refusal to read the thesis stands, on the grounds of personal taste. I prefer paragraphs, rational punctuation and comprehensible vocabulary. I dislike anything stated in all capitals, even when correctly spelled.

 

[mr_keybay]

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Physical decomposition, which, as I've pointed out, occurs in a matter of minutes after the circulation has stopped, except in a few highly exceptional circumstances. Permanent cessation of all brain activity is a pretty good indicator of this, having the advantage that you don't need to open the skull. 

We agree that it's an indicator only, not a "proof" or anything as to be entirely sure the physical body has to decompose itself, as the user PeterKin explained before. In fact I noticed that many historical procedures in order to deal with such a issue were using particular practices to make sure the person would never come back as far as I'm aware. Nowadays it has been put much more confidence to the modern technologies that somehow the "indictor" provided by those is the actual "proof" of someone being really dead.

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're not. Decomposition starts as soon as tissue no longer receives nourishment. You just don't overtly notice it until the microorganisms get to work. 

There seem to be some gaps in your understanding of the subject, just as shown in your responses here.

My refusal to read the thesis stands, on the grounds of personal taste. I prefer paragraphs, rational punctuation and comprehensible vocabulary. I dislike anything stated in all capitals, even when correctly spelled.

 

Although decomposition obviously starts, nothing seems to be able to provide any kind of detail on "when" decomposition starts and at which speed it degenerates. For the record, there have several cases in which decomposition of human's body was actually absent after a long time and the issue was debated as well. By such cases it looks not especially clear to me whether decomposition starts at some particular point and / or predicting his curve. However, assuming your claiming is correct, as I want to keep an open mind, then I would ask you: how's that even possible that those bodies didn't decompose themselves while clearly they hadn't the nourishment present for their life? Just curious.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Once again, different things. As far as I could read it seems you agreed to the fact that decomposition will not start right away.

I assume that once you die your body stops repairing itself so decompositions begins.  Don't know why that is important, the main point remains, dead things don't come back to life.

[mr_keybay]

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I assume that once you die your body stops repairing itself so decompositions begins.  Don't know why that is important, the main point remains, dead things don't come back to life.

Your reasoning looks entirely pragmatic without any rational thinking considered all the previous replies.

Edited April 8, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

In fact I noticed that many historical procedures in order to deal with such a issue were using particular practices to make sure the person would never come back as far as I'm aware.

That's not why those procedures were carried out. They were meant to preserve the body for its passage to the 'next world'. They didn't set much store by the brain and didn't want that useless much rotting in the perfect skull. But they prized the heart and liver and preserved those, for the owner his post-life used thereof.  

Except in the case of zombies and vampires, of course, but that's superstitious practice in service of superstitious belief, while the Egyptian mummification is scientific practice in service of superstitious belief.

28 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Although decomposition obviously starts, nothing seems to be able to provide any kind of detail on "when" decomposition starts and at which speed it degenerate

The degree or absence of obvious decomposition has no effect whatever on the presence or absence of life. You can have putrefying postules all over your body and still be alive, or be a perfectly preserved prehistoric man https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/europe-bog-bodies-reveal-secrets-180962770/ and be dead as a doornail. You might vacuum-pack a body for safekeeping, or keep it in the deep freeze, the same way you keep any met fresh. Fresh and alive are not synonymous.  

Edited April 8, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're not. Decomposition starts as soon as tissue no longer receives nourishment. You just don't overtly notice it until the microorganisms get to work. 

There seem to be some gaps in your understanding of the subject, just as shown in your responses here.

My refusal to read the thesis stands, on the grounds of personal taste. I prefer paragraphs, rational punctuation and comprehensible vocabulary. I dislike anything stated in all capitals, even when correctly spelled.

 

I think decomposition might not be the correct term, or at least it might be confusing in this context.  You might be referring to tissue damage as oppose to decomposition, which refers to breakdown into simpler compounds, typically via microbial activities (and generally also refers to large-scale events, as even in living organisms microbes do kind of decompose stuff, but very localized). 

With regard to death typically lack of oxygen (rather than lack of nutrients) initiates cell death (often by apoptoptic but also in part via necrotic mechanisms) within minutes. But I do not think that one would talk about decomposition at this point.

Edit: crossposted.

[exchemist]

37 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

We agree that it's an indicator only, not a "proof" or anything as to be entirely sure the physical body has to decompose itself, as the user PeterKin explained before. In fact I noticed that many historical procedures in order to deal with such a issue were using particular practices to make sure the person would never come back as far as I'm aware. Nowadays it has been put much more confidence to the modern technologies that somehow the "indictor" provided by those is the actual "proof" of someone being really dead.

 

All this is beside the point - apart from being also wrong about why the historical procedures you refer to were performed. The fact is that cell death (as @CharonYpoints out, a better term than decomposition in this context) is known to occur within minutes of the cessation of supply of oxygen.  

And that's it. There is nothing more to discuss, unless as I say you can produce well-attested evidence of people coming back to life many hours or days after cessation of brain activity (which we can use as a proxy for brain cell death).  

[mr_keybay]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's not why those procedures were carried out. They were meant to preserve the body for its passage to the 'next world'. They didn't set much store by the brain and didn't want that useless much rotting in the perfect skull. But they prized the heart and liver and preserved those, for the owner his post-life used thereof.  

Except in the case of zombies and vampires, of course, but that's superstitious practice in service of superstitious belief, while the Egyptian mummification is scientific practice in service of superstitious belief.

The degree or absence of obvious decomposition has no effect whatever on the presence or absence of life. You can have putrefying postules all over your body and still be alive, or be a perfectly preserved prehistoric man https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/europe-bog-bodies-reveal-secrets-180962770/ and be dead as a doornail. You might vacuum-pack a body for safekeeping, or keep it in the deep freeze, the same way you keep any met fresh. Fresh and alive are not synonymous.  

First of all, I don't really see where you actually notice my statements containing your current claim, which is "The degree or absence of obvious decomposition has no effect whatever on the presence or absence of life". The only pointed "issue" was simply a short explaination about the remarked lack of decomposition in that particular case. Obviously at certain temperatures you can keep the physiological state "integer" for a period of time, hibernation is what it's used. The fact oxygen may be a responsible factor of decomposition might not be entirely coherent with what described the case, even if anything is put inside a closed box the oxygen should always find a way to get inside.

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

All this is beside the point - apart from being also wrong about why the historical procedures you refer to were performed. The fact is that cell death (as @CharonYpoints out, a better term than decomposition in this context) is known to occur within minutes of the cessation of supply of oxygen.  

And that's it. There is nothing more to discuss, unless as I say you can produce well-attested evidence of people coming back to life many hours or days after cessation of brain activity (which we can use as a proxy for brain cell death).  

You can find all the "evident" proofs by consulting the literature and just doing an Internet research about resucitations / lack of decompositions after the exhumation. If you are researcher you would already know that.

[Peterkin]

33 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

You can find all the "evident" proofs by consulting the literature and just doing an Internet research about resucitations / lack of decompositions after the exhumation. If you are researcher you would already know that.

Sop can I, should I become interested enough. So can you.

Does that mean we're done here?

[exchemist]

59 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

 

You can find all the "evident" proofs by consulting the literature and just doing an Internet research about resucitations / lack of decompositions after the exhumation. If you are researcher you would already know that.

Haha, spoken like a true crank! It doesn't work like that. If you have a claim to make, it is for you to provide the supporting evidence. Other people don't have to run around and jump through hoops, to see if your ideas may possibly have anything behind them, especially when they think they are most likely nonsense.  It's your job to show they are not nonsense. Nobody else's.   

Edited April 8, 2022 by exchemist

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

Your reasoning looks entirely pragmatic without any rational thinking considered all the previous replies

Strangely enough, I disagree.

[TheVat]

So now we're down to "hey just check the Internet."  The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the OP poster.  Synaptic connections begin to decay in a few minutes when there is a lack of oxygen.  Cellular apoptosis and necrosis ensue soon after.  There are Himalayan-scale mountains of evidence for this.  When those neural connections (called the "connectome") degrade, all that makes up your self and consciousness go away.  One can postulate metaphysical mechanisms by which consciousness continues somewhere else, but that is not science and lies rather in the domain of religion or spiritualism.  

So, show us a study from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims, Keybay.  Also, manifesting some basic understanding of cell biology and physiology would help you make your case, whatever that may be.  For example, your incomprehension of how freezing leads to ice crystal formation which breaks up cytoskeleta and ruptures cell membranes and breaks up synapses, suggests some sort of further study is needed on your part.  When you thaw animal tissue, you get dead meat, not something that thinks and asks for breakfast.  

[mr_keybay]

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

So now we're down to "hey just check the Internet."  The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the OP poster.  Synaptic connections begin to decay in a few minutes when there is a lack of oxygen.  Cellular apoptosis and necrosis ensue soon after.  There are Himalayan-scale mountains of evidence for this.  When those neural connections (called the "connectome") degrade, all that makes up your self and consciousness go away.  One can postulate metaphysical mechanisms by which consciousness continues somewhere else, but that is not science and lies rather in the domain of religion or spiritualism.  

So, show us a study from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims, Keybay.  Also, manifesting some basic understanding of cell biology and physiology would help you make your case, whatever that may be.  For example, your incomprehension of how freezing leads to ice crystal formation which breaks up cytoskeleta and ruptures cell membranes and breaks up synapses, suggests some sort of further study is needed on your part.  When you thaw animal tissue, you get dead meat, not something that thinks and asks for breakfast.  

I am not sure how "cell biology" knowledge is relevant to this topic and I also don't see anything explained there capable to explain what happens and why the questions I asked above. Although I am just curious, none of you seemed to give me the proper answer to everything I pointed out. You are constantly asking me to provide the evidence to you while I believe that even if I would you are going to deny the showed facts so I rather prefer you to consult the literature yourself and find the "evidence" you expect, if you are interested.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I am not sure how "cell biology" knowledge is relevant to this topic and I also don't see anything explained there capable to explain what happens and why the questions I asked above. Although I am just curious, none of you seemed to give me the proper answer to everything I pointed out. You are constantly asking me to provide the evidence to you while I believe that even if I would you are going to deny the showed facts so I rather prefer you to consult the literature yourself and find the "evidence" you expect, if you are interested.

You are still trying to shift the burden of proof onto your readers: "Prove me wrong!", the age-old cry of the crank down the centuries.

Science relies on reproducible evidence. Without that, you have nothing to persuade anyone to take you seriously. 

 

[mr_keybay]

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are still trying to shift the burden of proof onto your readers: "Prove me wrong!", the age-old cry of the crank down the centuries.

Science relies on reproducible evidence. Without that, you have nothing to persuade anyone to take you seriously. 

 

Indeed, I would really appreciate if someone can actually prove me my statements being wrong. Whether you are ignoring the mentioned phenomenons I don't know, but the evidence I am talking about (which you clearly aren't aware of) show otherwise and that naturally goes against your pragmatical claims.

[exchemist]

Just now, mr_keybay said:

Indeed, I would really appreciate if someone can actually prove me my statements being wrong. Whether you are ignoring the mentioned phenomenons I don't know, but the evidence I am talking about (which you clearly aren't aware of) show otherwise and that naturally goes against your pragmatical claims.

And yet you are unable to produce any of this supposed evidence.

( [whispers] That is because it doesn't exist. We all know that, you see.) 

[mr_keybay]

39 minutes ago, exchemist said:

And yet you are unable to produce any of this supposed evidence.

( [whispers] That is because it doesn't exist. We all know that, you see.) 

https://www.iol.co.za/the-star/news/resurrected-mans-family-say-he-died-under-mysterious-circumstances-in-zim-211554
http://www.jesusmariasite.org/the-testimony-of-gloria-polo

https://mashable.com/article/woman-wakes-up-in-morgue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmgIyaagG94&t=445s

Also as PeterKin said, there's nothing sure in the science about the death and therefore admitting that cases of resuscitation may be possible.

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

I am not sure how "cell biology" knowledge is relevant to this topic

There is your first problem.

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

none of you seemed to give me the proper answer

and that's our second. What, by you, is a 'proper' answer?

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

refer you to consult the literature yourself and find the "evidence" you expect, if you are interested.

Had we been interested enough to do all the original research, we would now be experts in undeadness, or whatever this subject is. Obviously, we were only interested enough to respond to you. Until you became tiresome.

38 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I would really appreciate if someone can actually prove me my statements being wrong.

I never got so far as to figure out what you're wrong about, exactly. 

 

6 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Also as PeterKin said, there's nothing sure in the science about the death

Please to show where I said this. I'm not mad keen on being grossly misrepresented.