It's not crazy to think that if you're about to die, your perception of that 30 seconds could seem like years. Also everyones ragging on you in this thread and you keep biting.And how would that happen if you don't have a brain? Activity needs a substrate. Without substrate you don't exist. Maybe you are religious or spiritual. Then I'm out of the discussion, but do have in mind this study proves nothing of the sort. I can sadly see this study being communicated like this:
Heart-stopping ≠ death.
You're dead when your brain dies.
This is factually 100% incorrect. That's why you can be alive and on life support despite being brain dead. CPR is bringing people back to life.Heart-stopping ≠ death.
You're dead when your brain dies.
You are correct. This article is essentially stating nothing at all, but as the post I quoted shows, a lot of people don't know what death actually is.I mean, this isn't much of a surprise is it? This is why we can revive those who are 'dead' using defibrillation paddles. The brain is still active and alive until it runs out of oxygen and goes brain dead. If the heart is restarted after X minutes, I would think some form of awareness was still a possibility in the intervening time since the brain/center of awareness is not yet 'dead'.
This is factually 100% incorrect. That's why you can be alive and on life support despite being brain dead.
You're talking about personhood, which is a different thing. Death is when your heart stops, there's nothing to debate.But "you" aren't alive, your body is.
I suppose this is more of a philosophical discussion as to what "you" means.
I always heard that when they chopped your head off in the guilitine that you had a good 7 or 8 seconds of awareness when your head was in the basket.
Here, then, is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the guillotined man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about five or six seconds ... I waited for several seconds. The spasmodic movements ceased.The face relaxed, the lids half closed on the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day in the exercise of our profession, or as in those just dead.It was then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: ‘Languille!' I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions ... Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves ... After several seconds, the eyelids closed again, slowly and evenly, and the head took on the same appearance as it had had before I called out.It was at that point that I called out again and, once more, without any spasm, slowly, the eyelids lifted and undeniably living eyes fixed themselves on mine with perhaps even more penetration than the first time. Then there was a further closing of the eyelids, but now less complete. I attempted the effect of a third call; there was no further movement and the eyes took on the glazed look which they have in the dead.
I have just recounted to you with rigorous exactness what I was able to observe. The whole thing had lasted twenty-five to thirty seconds.
Yep. During the french revolution people going to the guillotine were asked to blink as much as possible
https://www.damninteresting.com/lucid-decapitation/
So , when with a dying person, after they seem to pass, please whisper that its OK, and Thank you for a good minute.
Interesting article with some actual doctors and physicists talking about quantum theory and consciousness being a separate entity. I dont really think the subject has been studied all that much because its too hard fo scientists to not be working towards their firm belief that consciousness is only created by the mind.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-suggests-consciousness-moves-on-after-death/
CPR is oneSo why can't we reproduce the mechanisms to keep the brain alive after bodily death? Could we eventually?
No but once you realize what happens after you die you're really going to never wanna die.
You're talking about personhood, which is a different thing. Death is when your heart stops, there's nothing to debate.
It's not so simple. But essentially, when your brain dies, everything that makes you, you is dead. Your body which is also you may be kept alive by medical devices. If your heart fails you can get another heart etc etc.Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.
So why can't we reproduce the mechanisms to keep the brain alive after bodily death? Could we eventually?
Heart-stopping ≠ death.
You're dead when your brain dies.
You're talking about personhood, which is a different thing. Death is when your heart stops, there's nothing to debate.
You can be clinically brain dead and still live (with assistance).
So why can't we reproduce the mechanisms to keep the brain alive after bodily death? Could we eventually?
Because the human body is exceedingly good at it, where we aren't. Circulation and oxygination aren't easy tasks, especially the stuff that occurs on a cellular level.
It's been done with animals. Severed heads with bloodflow connected have been kept alive for quite a long time. We're not nearly good enough at that to use it on humans yet though. But some day I bet we'll have our Futurama future.
Probably. It's at that point when your mind will become a personal hell or heaven. That seems to last forever.Damn this is terrifying. Those minutes must seem like a lifetime.
Whoa...whoa.
I know what she's describing about time slowing, it felt like that when I spun out once on ice. Somehow my car and I avoided any damage but there was a feeling during like I was just on a ride and I had a bit of time to accept that. Freaky stuff.
So, then, an afterlife is totally feasible. The body dies. The brain is flooded with whatever chemicals that it gets flooded with upon death, remains conscious after death, falls into a dream-like state where time expands exponentially, dreams for 10 seconds, but lives 1000 years.
Not likely. Contrary to popular belief, dreams have been demonstrated to unfold in real-time, not in some compressed fashion (where a 10-second dream would feel like hours) like many believe. No reason it would be different in this case.
Truly the most important takeaway here!Teabagging is not meaningless after all.
Not likely. Contrary to popular belief, dreams have been demonstrated to unfold in real-time, not in some Inception-like compressed fashion (where a 10-second dream would feel like hours). No reason it would be different in this case.
Dreams are when you're healthy. A brain on recreational drugs can perceive time differently, no reason to think a dying brain couldn't be similar.Not likely. Contrary to popular belief, dreams have been demonstrated to unfold in real-time, not in some Inception-like compressed fashion (where a 10-second dream would feel like hours). No reason it would be different in this case.
Because the state of being alive or dead is arbitrary and that's the definition we have as humans for the difference between the two. It's not complicated. You're arguing against definitions, a brain dead person is still alive, that's why you say brain dead for brain dead and not heart dead for dead. You're still talking about personhood rather than physiological death btwWhy? I know this is the common definition, but give me one rational reason? The heart is nothing but a muscle that pumps blood. Why does it stopping mean that you're instantly dead, even if your brain is still working? I just don't buy it. A braiddead person being kept artificially "alive" however, I would say is really dead. The brain is much more central to the concept of being alive than the heart.
Again, that's just a dead person in a body which is being kept artificially "alive". If you did the same to a body without a head, would you say it's alive?