BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

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

I don't need to. Anecdotes are not data. If the totality of a person's cognitive experience is in the brain, and science supports that view, there is no signal from said brain, in 4 minutes without circulation, irreversible damage will commence. If you are going to start hypothesising about some  metaphysical existence, you are in the wrong place. This is a science forum and that is not science.

Edited April 9, 2022 by StringJunky

[mr_keybay]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I don't need to. Anecdotes are not data. If the totality of a person's cognitive experience is in the brain, and science supports that view, there is no signal from said brain, in 4 minutes without circulation, irreversible damage will commence. If you are going to start hypothesising about some  metaphysical existence, you are in the wrong place. This is a science forum and that is not science.

Hypotheses or not, I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway.

[Bufofrog]

38 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway.

Please supply a citation for this claim.

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal,

Experiment while flat-lining? Improbable.

Perceive while flat-lining? Improbable.

Cases described as near death experience are of people have almost died, but didn't. Nobody has described the approaching death experience of people who actually did die. Therefore, the data collected in studies of near death experience are from people who have a memory of surviving.

[mr_keybay]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Cases described as near death experience are of people have almost died, but didn't. Nobody has described the approaching death experience of people who actually did die. Therefore, the data collected in studies of near death experience are from people who have a memory of surviving.

16 hours 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. 

Let me explain why you are definitely wrong. If by "death" you (we) mean the interruption of any internal observable brain activity (the NDEs phenomena exactly shows such events during such clinical state) - then we can state that they are actually dead, also to all your previous statements in which you confirmed the death can be considered once the brain stops emitting its electrical signals. For the umpteenth time, I proved you wrong regarding your last dispute.

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Experiment while flat-lining? Improbable.

Perceive while flat-lining? Improbable.

What's improbable for you is not what's observable in reality, they are completely two different things; reality does not behave as you think it to behave. I think that's obvious enough.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

reality does not behave as you think it to behave.

Well, that's all right then.

[Bufofrog]

On 4/9/2022 at 4:12 PM, mr_keybay said:

I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway.

Am I to assume that you do not have a citation for this claim of yours?

[mr_keybay]

16 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Am I to assume that you do not have a citation for this claim of yours?

I am not sure if you are kidding, once again, but here's the specified NDE documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

"A near-death experience (NDE) is a profound personal experience associated with death or impending death which researchers claim share similar characteristics. When positive, such experiences may encompass a variety of sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. When negative, such experiences may include sensations of anguish and distress."

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

I am not sure if you are kidding, once again, but here's the specified NDE documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

No I wasn't kidding.  

Unfortunately, this citation does not seem to support your claim. 

You claim: "I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway."

I am still wondering if you have a citation for this claim or is it something you just believe without evidence.

[mr_keybay]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

No I wasn't kidding.  

Unfortunately, this citation does not seem to support your claim. 

You claim: "I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway."

I am still wondering if you have a citation for this claim or is it something you just believe without evidence.

Here's a citation for you: "The experience is presented as inherent to an electroencephalograph showing no brain activity. Normally, when we speak of a flat EEG, we are referring to clinical death or brain death, which is irreversible"

http://www.perfettaletizia.it/archivio/infomazione/premorte/english.html

Additionally it's subsequently specified that further analyses are necessary in order to confirm the final-legal-announcement as "dead" - which most all are somehow connected to the internal brain activity because that's of main relevance - during the next hours since the lost of its activity; neither the time and the monitored parameters (informations) of such surveillance are chosen by the science, but from a country's laws: you can have some Nation giving certain maximal time for observation, you can have another Nation giving another maximal time / parameter of observation since the main brain activity lost. If there will be no occur, the clinical state can be considered as "irrevesible" - therefore dead. Please, explain to me now: how can you acknowledge "death" from such assumptions even? Here was my simple implication; the fact we take my previous statement as real, we can not deny that there may be chances for some to get into a reversible state after the defined time, by logic - in terms of science.

Edited April 12, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Here's a citation for you: "The experience is presented as inherent to an electroencephalograph showing no brain activity. Normally, when we speak of a flat EEG, we are referring to clinical death or brain death, which is irreversible"

http://www.perfettaletizia.it/archivio/infomazione/premorte/english.html

This is the conclusion at the end of the of the 2 introductory paragraphs from your source.

Those who believe in the reality of NDE assert that the patient remembers what happened during the flat-EEG period, but this is not conclusively scientifically verifiable.

So your source does not support your assertion.

From this same site this was said:  "A believer, when evaluating cases of NDE, cannot exclude the intervention of the devil during the final stage of recovering from a state of coma. The devil, as theology tells us, is able to induce dreams or visions."

This a religious site and not a scientific site.  As such it is not exactly a good source to cite for a scientific discussion.

[Peterkin]

Not to mention, there is a football field between near death and after death. 

[mr_keybay]

14 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Those who believe in the reality of NDE assert that the patient remembers what happened during the flat-EEG period, but this is not conclusively scientifically verifiable.

So your source does not support your assertion.

From this same site this was said:  "A believer, when evaluating cases of NDE, cannot exclude the intervention of the devil during the final stage of recovering from a state of coma. The devil, as theology tells us, is able to induce dreams or visions."

So you go out to the conclusion that this is not a scientific occur or evidence for that matter? Also, given what you are addressing, how the "NDE" term would stand from if there would be no a particular clinical state defining such unexpected perceptions, cognitive experiences? The fact that "NDE" would heppen while active electrical brain activity is going to falsify the particularity of phenomenon, isn't it obvious? If the cognitive experience heppens during an active electrical activity I don't see how it could be even considered as particular cognitive experience, as in that case it's pretty clear the against-proof which resides on the observable EEG from the brain; in fact, it could be nicely associated from this physical reason.

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not to mention, there is a football field between near death and after death. 

Yet, apparently, you cannot properly define what you actually mean from the term of death. Let's make it clear: Nothing we can discuss that the death can be considered whenever the brain stops emitting the usual signals, no matter the time, no matter the time and no matter the "space". You stated that for several times as well, please don't lie to yourself. Even if the brain does not produce any actual signal for a single instant, it is dead or, at least, considerable as scientifically "brain death". Since now, although, it has to follow an accurate definitive announcement as "death", which solely consists in the time-lapse since the cessation of activities that are entirely established by laws. Nothing more. The only difference between those two facts is this: one of the cases explained above is dead (but restores its activity because the absence was very short), the second one shows that definitive announcement of death can be made after the brain does not restore its faculties inside the established time limit. Who establishes such temporal limit? Certainly not the science as it has no actual proof whenever a brain can be considered as dead and whenever not, it's then up to the laws (based upon ethics, literature, politics) to decide when it's time to plug off the life. What do you dispute me regarding the above claims?

Edited April 13, 2022 by mr_keybay

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

So you go out to the conclusion that this is not a scientific occur or evidence for that matter? Also, given what you are addressing, how the "NDE" term would stand from if there would be no a particular clinical state defining such unexpected perceptions, cognitive experiences? The fact that "NDE" would heppen while active electrical brain activity is going to falsify the particularity of phenomenon, isn't it obvious? If the cognitive experience heppens during an active electrical activity I don't see how it could be even considered as particular cognitive experience, as in that case it's pretty clear the against-proof which resides on the observable EEG from the brain; in fact, it could be nicely associated from this physical reason.

Yet, apparently, you cannot properly define what you actually mean from the term of death. Let's make it clear: Nothing we can discuss that the death can be considered whenever the brain stops emitting the usual signals, no matter the time, no matter the time and no matter the "space". You stated that for several times as well, please don't lie to yourself. Even if the brain does not produce any actual signal for a single instant, it is dead or, at least, considerable as scientifically "brain death". Since now, although, it has to follow an accurate definitive announcement as "death", which solely consists in the time-lapse since the cessation of activities that are entirely established by laws. Nothing more. The only difference between those two facts is this: one of the cases explained above is dead (but restores its activity because the absence was very short), the second one shows that definitive announcement of death can be made after the brain does not restore its faculties inside the established time limit. Who establishes such temporal limit? Certainly not the science as it has no actual proof whenever a brain can be considered as dead and whenever not, it's then up to the laws (based upon ethics, literature, politics) to decide when it's time to plug off the life. What do you dispute me regarding the above claims?

Determining death has considerable legal consequences so it is inevitable that death must in practice have a definition in law. This legal definition, drafted by legislators as it will be, may differ somewhat from one country to another. But you cannot use that to draw any scientific conclusions. The law is not science. The law sets up rules that society agrees to be bound by. As such it may have to take account of a range of human, social, religious and political factors as well as science. 

For science, you need reproducible evidence. Arguing about law is utterly irrelevant. You've been told several times how death is established scientifically, but you seem to want to cling on to the notion that a person can be revived after circulation has stopped and brain activity has ceased for an extended period. This is contrary to current understanding. 

It is you that needs to substantiate that claim, by producing well-attested evidence of people whose brain activity has definitively been established to have ceased for a period of time, but who nonetheless have been revived. So far you have not done so. All I have seen from you is a collection of anecdotes, not involving any proper scientific monitoring, taken from newspapers etc. and a lot of argument. That is nowhere near good enough. You have not made your case. Where is the data?

 

  

Edited April 13, 2022 by exchemist

[mr_keybay]

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Determining death has considerable legal consequences so it is inevitable that death must in practice have a definition in law. This legal definition, drafted by legislators as it will be, may differ somewhat from one country to another. But you cannot use that to draw any scientific conclusions. The law is not science. The law sets up rules that society agrees to be bound by. As such it may have to take account of a range of human, social, religious and political factors as well as science. 

Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Despite I think I have asked the same question to you for thousands times, remarked as the core of the thesis inside thread in question, everyone seemed to ignore it. I would even go further; in some reports, people revealed not only a different kind of reality during the particular cognitive experience, but verifiable events occurred in the current reality, targeted as "OBE", that later have been proven by the other subjects who participated the specific described events. Whatever you don't agree to the various citations of mine, defining them "anecdotes", I can't do nothing, but many researchers know that this is not the case. It's pretty obvious that you cannot reproduce any of the reported perceptions with a flat EEG, how do you expect to do so? Therefore, that doesn't automatically mean the facts do not exist, that people are lying, that I am lying, that you must have no interest for.

Edited April 13, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

Certainly not the science as it has no actual proof whenever a brain can be considered as dead and whenever not, it's then up to the laws (based upon ethics, literature, politics) to decide when it's time to plug off the life.

Laws are not based on science; they are based on morality, and the morality of a society is largely dictated by its dominant religion. And, of course, the state of science changes from day to day, as witness the bases for determination of death in 1900 CE as compared to 2000 CE, while the law lags decades behind and rarely on the same track. 

3 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

please don't lie to yourself.

 

 

[mr_keybay]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Laws are not based on science; they are based on morality, and the morality of a society is largely dictated by its dominant religion. And, of course, the state of science changes from day to day, as witness the bases for determination of death in 1900 CE as compared to 2000 CE, while the law lags decades behind and rarely on the same track. 

Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Every your sentence contradicts your previous ones, that makes me think.

Edited April 13, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question.

The process of death is the same all over, but how we view death has a cultural context. Muslims believe their god ordains the time of death for each individual, and other cultures believe death can follow death unless certain traditions are observed (iirc, Russians cover their mirrors and stop their clocks when someone dies to keep the living safe). Society's rules don't have to follow scientific methodology. Most of those rules on death concern the transfer of possessions, public safety, and investigating irregularities. Science isn't always the template societies use.

 

 

Btw - if you plan on copying your own previous posts and pasting them as replies to anything I've said (the way you just did with Peterkin), you can enjoy the conversation without me. I didn't join this discussion for the intellectual laziness.

[mr_keybay]

25 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The process of death is the same all over, but how we view death has a cultural context.

I would not only say "how we view", I would rather add "how we handle" it as well.

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

I would not only say "how we view", I would rather add "how we handle" it as well.

That's why I went on to give examples of how our views determine how we handle death. So your question is answered, yes?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Despite I think I have asked the same question to you for thousands times, remarked as the core of the thesis inside thread in question, everyone seemed to ignore it. I would even go further; in some reports, people revealed not only a different kind of reality during the particular cognitive experience, but verifiable events occurred in the current reality, targeted as "OBE", that later have been proven by the other subjects who participated the specific described events. Whatever you don't agree to the various citations of mine, defining them "anecdotes", I can't do nothing, but many researchers know that this is not the case. It's pretty obvious that you cannot reproduce any of the reported perceptions with a flat EEG, how do you expect to do so? Therefore, that doesn't automatically mean the facts do not exist, that people are lying, that I am lying, that you must have no interest for.

I have just told you why the legal definition of death may differ between countries, in spite of the science being the same. I will spell it out even more explicitly for you:

Law is drafted by legislators, not by scientists. A legislator may understand the science or may not. He or she may  also listen to the medical profession, the police, religious leaders, pressure groups of various kinds, and also be aware of the prevailing culture of the society he or she is legislating for. 

A legal definition has to be something that can be established reasonably easily by the medical profession and the police and for which documentary evidence can be produced in court. In the UK, a doctor has to sign a death certificate, which pushes the responsibility for the decision onto the doctor - a sensible thing to do, given that medical practice and techniques do not stand still. There is a description of how this works out in practice, for the UK, in this article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61064-9/fulltext

As for your anecdotes, they ( a ) do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence and ( b ) they conflict with the current understanding of the relevant science, viz. the rapid and irreversible deterioration of the brain in the absence of oxygen and the significance of the cessation of measurable electrical activity in the brain. That being so,  someone who claims the science is wrong needs to produce new, properly monitored and documented evidence of that. You haven't.     

[mr_keybay]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's why I went on to give examples of how our views determine how we handle death. So your question is answered, yes?

A political type of handling to the death is completely different to what science may define for that matter. The fact that nowadays the politics do look for any ideological reason to handle such a phenomenon it makes me think, especially when science, as you all claimed by now, has a "proper" method of determining death. It sounds weird, pretty much weird. Reasons may be two: either the societies do not put the full trust to the science, the dominant science (which is quite unlikely to be the case for the modern societies) - so establishing specific rules on the handling of death (not based from science implications but ideologies), either the science knowledge about that kind of phenomenon isn't full enough to provide management methods to the actual societies (eg. not capable to prove that nobody can actually restore life activities after an indefinite period) naturally not considering the decomposition factor yet - although, for conventional reasons everyone must be buried, despite the assumptions someone might do, also as PeterKin specified in one of his first replies to this thread. The point is that none of the indicated reasons explicitly implies that no one can ever restore the life activities, especially if we stand for the first described reason. Can you dispute my claim? Yes or no?

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Can you dispute my claim? Yes or no?

Yes.

[mr_keybay]

49 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Law is drafted by legislators, not by scientists. A legislator may understand the science or may not. He or she may  also listen to the medical profession, the police, religious leaders, pressure groups of various kinds, and also be aware of the prevailing culture of the society he or she is legislating for. 

All the more reason, the fact that there is a variable definition of observation time from country to country (and the subsequent procedures with observed informations) and, as you said, the lack of oxygen implies an immediate degradation of the brain structures - what kind of sense would it make for politics to entrust the management of the dead to ideologies rather than science when science has all the necessary details about the "end" of that individual, especially in modern cultures where the greatest credit is given to science in the first place? (eg. without a unique identifying solution such as the lost of circulation system - which naturally implies that the brain would lose the main "tool" not to go into a degradation state? Isn't that a good reason for politics to consider the stop of cardiopulmonary system as the main factor to determine death, but strangely there are still differences of the chosen methods?)

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Yes.

Please supply your dispute regarding my previous claims. What is your dispute for my claims?

Edited April 13, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

Can you dispute my claim? Yes or no?

Yes.