BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON

[mr_keybay]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

There is your first problem.

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

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.

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

 

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

What's the point of your all comments then? Just curious.

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

Explaining how and why exhumed bodies did not decompose themselves despite the long time passed into the burial in some particular cases. Since you look pretty much confident on what you stated before and the way you actually phrased your "rational explanations" - I would then ask you to explain me this, kindly. Furthermore I am not annoyed at all by your questions, although the most questions I am reading here are not related to the core topic even; the only annoying part is everything you claim to say is the most "better" rational explaintion indirectly attacking my thesis without knowing what we are talking about, as you explicitly specified not being interested; it's not annoying so bad either, but that's the reason of my responses.

[exchemist]

34 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

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.

 

None of these links  has any scientific evidence of a person resuming life after being dead for hours. At best they are unsubstantiated anecdotes and, in one of them, the article even explains why they were not actually dead.  

[mr_keybay]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

None of these links  has any scientific evidence of a person resuming life after being dead for hours. At best they are unsubstantiated anecdotes and, in one of them, the article even explains why they were not actually dead.  

What do you mean by "actally dead"? Can you explain please?

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

What do you mean by "actally dead"? Can you explain please?

Read your own link: https://mashable.com/article/woman-wakes-up-in-morgue

[mr_keybay]

32 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Read your own link: https://mashable.com/article/woman-wakes-up-in-morgue

I see, I read that the "medical" and paramedical operators look incompetent enough that announce death even when it actually isn't in some cases; great, something I pointed out in my thesis as well. If paramedics and medical team can give a false announcement then they aren't well-competent to declare someone's death, probably? Who is to blame here: wrong scientific knowledge (or just simply not enough to prove anything) or invalid operator's competence? My assumption is that since all the "competent" people are supposed to know what the science says about death - they should not mistake, yet they mistake? Once again, assumption is that there's something wrong with the scientific knowledge about the matter and therefore implies that, considered those critical errors, someone might wake up inside the burial without anyone knowing ever.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I see, I read that the "medical" and paramedical operators look incompetent enough that announce death even when it actually isn't in some cases; great, something I pointed out in my thesis as well. If paramedics and medical team can give a false announcement then they aren't well-competent to declare someone's death, probably? Who is to blame here: wrong scientific knowledge (or just simply not enough to prove anything) or invalid operator's competence? My assumption is that since all the "competent" people are supposed to know what the science says about death - they should not mistake, yet they mistake? Once again, assumption is that there's something wrong with the scientific knowledge about the matter and therefore implies that, considered those critical errors, someone might wake up inside the burial without anyone knowing ever.

The fact that cars sometimes crash does not call into question the laws of mechanics.  

Similarly, occasional medical incompetence does not call the science of what happens at death into question.

Edited April 9, 2022 by exchemist

[mr_keybay]

10 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The fact that cars sometimes crash does not call into question the laws of mechanics.  

Similarly, occasional medical incompetence does not call the science of what happens at death into question.

You are stating that medical incompetence is completely unrelated to what's defined in the mechanical laws. However, I see that people almost always do not not mistake (medical people) when it comes to what's entirely known in the common practices, which are way more documented from the science unlike what's defined for the death.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[exchemist]

51 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

You are stating that medical incompetence is completely unrelated to what's defined in the mechanical laws. However, I see that people almost always do not not mistake (medical people) when it comes to what's entirely known in the common practices, which are way more documented from the science unlike what's defined for the death.

Medical mistakes are commonplace. However it is extremely rare indeed for an error to be made when someone is pronounced dead, since that is pretty easy to determine, as has been explained to you several times now.   

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

What's the point of your all comments then?

I answered the specific items I quoted, and nothing else. The point was, in each case, self-evident. 

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Just curious.

I'm not convinced this completely sincere.

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Explaining how and why exhumed bodies did not decompose themselves despite the long time passed into the burial in some particular cases.

I mentioned a couple of factors that retard decomposition. To be more comprehensive: mummification, extreme cold, dehydration, saline or acidic environment, exclusion of oxygen and microorganisms.  Not a great big mystery - and not relevant to whether the meat thus kept fresh was dead or alive when it went into the container. If someone were buried while still alive, they would not stay alive very long - 3-6 hours, depending on the size of the person and the coffin and how much they struggled. The state of tissue preservation is a function of the environment, not the animation of the corpse.

I have* a pickled hog's head in a vacuum pack in my larder. It's been there for six months, before which it was shipped over from Poland. It's fresh and ready to eat whenever a Narn dignitary comes to dinner.  But I'm confident that that pig was stone dead, even before the head was severed from the body. 

(* Of course i don't! That would be as gross as exhuming people. ) 

 

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

"rational explanations"

I don't agree that my responses have earned those quotation marks.

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

I would then ask you to explain me this, kindly.

I don't follow. My rational explanations were of the phenomena I explicitly addressed. If you need anything else explained, ask a specific, comprehensible question. If you want a thesis discussed, present it in clear, concise terms. 

If you just want to be annoyed and annoying, keep doing what you're doing.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[mr_keybay]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Medical mistakes are commonplace. However it is extremely rare indeed for an error to be made when someone is pronounced dead, since that is pretty easy to determine, as has been explained to you several times now.   

You are completely contradicting what the user PeterKin said regarding the matter, the fact is that the death announcement is not easy at all to be honest as you can read below:

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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.  

 

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't follow. My rational explanations were of the phenomena I explicitly addressed. If you need anything else explained, ask a specific, comprehensible question. If you want a thesis discussed, present it in clear, concise terms. 

If you just want to be annoyed and annoying, keep doing what you're doing.

It is not my job to make something more "clear" because you have no read at it, similarly a science research journal is not going to re-write a "paper" specifically for you just because you cannot understand it or you do not have any intention to put efforts to decipher a "long" text, as you mentioned. It's not about being annoyed or being annoying. The thesis is just here; if you are interested, feel free to read it - otherwise, naturally, please feel free to leave. Like I said, nobody (including me) is enforcing you to stay here.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Like I said, nobody (including me) is enforcing you to stay here.

True. OTOH, neither can you force me to leave.

29 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

You are completely contradicting what the user PeterKin said regarding the matter, the fact is that the death announcement is not easy at all to be honest as you can read below:

Are you at all aware that two posts you say are contradictory actually say the same thing?

[mr_keybay]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Are you at all aware that two posts you say are contradictory actually say the same thing?

I think what's contradictory is the fact that in your post you are claiming that despite the modern available methods to monitor the state of a certain individual the medical practitioners will stay alert inside the death process. In the next posts the user exchemist specifies that his statement (which is the ease of death announcement) exactly fits all your previous attempts; now both please explain me, how would it be "extremely easy", as exchemist described, to announce the death while the user Peterkin stated that medical practitioners would be still in alert anyway? If that's "extremely easy" as exchemist claims, why would be there a reason to even stay in "alert"? Do you see why what you both are saying are two different things? Thank you.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

It is not my job to make something more "clear" because you have no read at it,

I know this is just a simple typing error (which I do all the time) but it really cracked me up.

[Peterkin]

 

Quote

I think what's contradictory is the fact that in your post you are claiming that despite the modern available methods to monitor the state of a certain individual the medical practitioners will stay alert inside the death process.

 

While cessation of neural activity is easy to detect with state-of-the-art equipment, such equipment may be unavailable or incompetently used. Since human error cannot be ruled out entirely, vigilance is advised, and usually applied. That is why incorrect pronunciation of death is very rare, as we both said. After a period of monitoring borderline patients, a determination can be made on the basis of multiple readings. The problem is not telling when the patient's brain stopped working, but telling the family to pull the plug. 

The confusion of advanced medical technology is that it's reversed the termination determination. A century ago, if you failed the wrist and mirror test, you were off to the morgue, even if your brain was still working. Now, you can be dead for months, yet your heart keeps beating and you keep breathing.    

Edited April 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[mr_keybay]

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The problem is not telling when the patient's brain stopped working, but telling the family to pull the plug.

If science has the - as you are stating - full certainty about death's beginning (after the lost of any brain activity) - why would be that a "problem"? Please answer to this. While the familes likely have no idea that the "science" uses such practice in which they might declare the death when it is not simply because they do not occur the values they expect to monitor, and therefore it becomes unclear whether they should really announce someone as "dead" according to the values they can actually observe it might be not enough.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

If science has the - as you are stating - full certainty about death's beginning (after the lost of any brain activity) - why would be that a "problem"?

If by 'that', you mean telling the family it's time to turn off the life support, it's a problem because of psychology. People don't want their loved ones to be dead. They want to cling to hope, so they deny the evidence put before them. This is facilitated by the equipment which artificially mimics the obvious signs of life - heartbeat and breathing - even when the less obvious, but most important functions of life - brain activity - has ceased. These relatives often behave like a a mother dog who refuses to believe her pup is dead, and will keep digging it up and trying to  lick it back to life (an instinctive behaviour, which is actually useful in cases where a newborn fails to start breathing right away)

People, like other animals, have a hard time accepting the fact of death. Does any of this sound familiar?    

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

it might be not enough

Yes, it is. In fact, I'll push this boat a little farther out. In some cases, even before all brain activity ceases, it is better to let the patient go than to pull him back into an untenable travesty of life. 

[mr_keybay]

36 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

People, like other animals, have a hard time accepting the fact of death. Does any of this sound familiar?

Of course: like everything sounding a bad thing for the "taste" it will be put far far away, am I correct?

36 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, it is. In fact, I'll push this boat a little farther out. In some cases, even before all brain activity ceases, it is better to let the patient go than to pull him back into an untenable travesty of life. 

So then it's not even "death"; it's just a particular condition that you define as "death" but it is not because certain life-needed-functions may be still working.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

So then it's not even "death"; it's just a particular condition that you define as "death" but it is not because certain life-needed-functions may be still working.

No, I don't define it as death unless it is death. But some people, including, apparently, yourself, seem to have trouble accepting the presence of death even after it occurs, or, indeed, the inevitability of death. 

I merely offered an alternative to forcing badly damaged brains to keep inhabiting bodies they can no longer operate or enjoy.  Even more than that: undamaged brains shouldn't be forced to inhabit bodies they cannot operate or enjoy.

[mr_keybay]

43 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, I don't define it as death unless it is death. But some people, including, apparently, yourself, seem to have trouble accepting the presence of death even after it occurs, or, indeed, the inevitability of death. 

You do not define it as "death" but all your previous replies show how much you are contradicting yourself, yet you cannot certainly answer what you define as "death" as you have been asked for several times by now. I do not believe death is not existing, as you are addressing, moreover I think that no scientific applied methodology is capable to establish any actual beginning of death process; some organs may be still working, like you stated, some others not as for the most exceptional cases. The fact you do personally think that partially-damaged-bodies should be declared as "dead" (not scientifically dead but let's say politically dead) - so consequently treated like such, has nothing to do with a scientific definition, which is naturally impartial. Am I correct?

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Bufofrog]

53 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

So then it's not even "death"; it's just a particular condition that you define as "death" but it is not because certain life-needed-functions may be still working.

Seems like we are getting off into the weeds.  The point is there is no evidence that a dead person has ever come back to life.

[mr_keybay]

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Seems like we are getting off into the weeds.  The point is there is no evidence that a dead person has ever come back to life.

The point is, in my opinion, that you have no idea of what you (we) are talking about and I'm pretty sure you haven't took a fast look at the thesis neither, yet you are here with the only purpose to deflect the conversation with your unnecessary remarks (eg. typo error remarks) for some reason and you clearly aren't following the various posted replies.

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

You do not define it as "death"

We have defined it until we are all the colour of Picts on the warpath. Death occurs when brain activity ceases. That frickin simple. Even if the heart is still pumping, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. Even if the lungs are still bellowing, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. There is no "process" of death. There are processes of life, the most essential and irreplaceable of which is the firing of neurons. When neurons stop, life stops. That's it. Now, ffs, leave them alone. Stop digging them them up to check for freshness. 

14 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

the conversation with your unnecessary remarks

The "conversation" consists entirely of pointless remarks.

[mr_keybay]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We have defined it until we are all the colour of Picts on the warpath. Death occurs when brain activity ceases. That frickin simple. Even if the heart is still pumping, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. Even if the lungs are still bellowing, with or without mechanical aid, if the brain has stopped, life has stopped. There is no "process" of death. There are processes of life, the most essential and irreplaceable of which is the firing of neurons. When neurons stop, life stops. That's it. Now, ffs, leave them alone. Stop digging them them up to check for freshness. 

And why exactly would the science define someone as "dead" only because of the flat-brain-activity curve? You advocate that the absence of the brain electrical activity means the absence of life but at this point how would you explain the NDE (Near-death-experiences) phenomena? I'm curious.

Edited April 9, 2022 by mr_keybay

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

And why exactly would the science define someone as "dead" only because of the flat-brain-activity curve? You advocate that the absence of the brain electrical activity means the absence of life but at this point how would you explain the NDE (Near-death-experiences) phenomena? I'm curious.

If there's no electyrical activity in the brain, that person no longer exists. NDE obviously means that there is stll electrical activity in the brain, and therefore the person is not devoid of life.

[mr_keybay]

Just now, StringJunky said:

If there's no electyrical activity in the brain, that person no longer exists. NDE obviously means that there is stll electrical activity in the brain, and therefore the person is not devoid of life.

You are definitely wrong. I recommend you to check out the NDE's literature.