mr_keybay

In the previous article "BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON" it is noted that the diagnosis of death does not come with univocal, but variable criteria for ascertainment based on a society’s law, as well as the presence of cases of resurrection documented in the literature frequently occurred within the medically "reversible" marked temporal range and therefore not of absolute death. This assumption led me to the introduction of a scientific experiment called ADC (advanced-death-checker) with the aim to observe the evolution of a body that died for an indefinite time during the entire biological decomposition process by a remote monitoring system to the parameters given to life. However, this shakes up some questions worthy to be considered. In order to fully understand death, it is necessary to clarify life, individual conception and its definition through a philosophical reflection with the metaphysics. Individual’s life awareness is given by an active interaction with other subjects that coexist in the same place, the relation allows to identify, name the perceptions of it: there is no awareness of living in birth, but perceptions only, which do not imply any definition of being alive until they are actively defined by otherness. There does not seem to be any element capable of determining the being alive autonomously, but only through a certain active interaction responsible of the creation of a society-world in which it is established a conceptualization of existence confined to that place, where the individual finds himself. A human being through altered physical senses will have no way to become aware of being in that specific place, but different, however from the external perspective it results present giving two truths and therefore two different places. He is there but unable to feel there according to his perception. Given an objective reality is established by the mutual active - that depends by perceptions which can vary - interaction with subjects in a certain environment the objective reality may depend to the subjective reality: a variation of perceptions can alter the interaction with reality. In such case, in fact, there would be no unique reality. Such an event seems to provide a conception of parallel realities that can exist simultaneously depending on perception regardless the lack of interaction with them. The uniqueness of the individual would be unable of fulfilling a conception of “existence in a place”, because it is unlimited. Without an interaction all perceptions of reality would remain undefined following the unconsciousness of being alive. Since it would be impossible to define life, it cannot be possible to define death either. Given that the death is the antithesis of life and it cannot be defined, the same goes for the former too. The two oppose each other, but neither acquires truthfulness; it could be alive or dead, but still existing. If mere perceptions are the only awareness and the only information available to be something, then the variation of these implies being something else. Let’s suppose we are in a state devoid of perceptions, nothingness; the perception of not perceiving implies a perception, then one is something. Let’s suppose that from the state of "perception-of-non-perception" a variation takes place, making perceptions vastly different by transforming into those known in ordinary life, then one is something else. Between these two variants something remains unchanged: being. When the state of non-perception constitutes a perception, it means that the being assumes validity also in this case and that it can also be independent, responsible for consciousness. As the same independent and responsible being of consciousness, it can contain memory from which to distinguish itself autonomously on the basis of previous variations and identify itself from them in its diversity but remaining autonomously indefinable. The being is the unlimited existence, the being is perception. The being is relentless, its form is variable. "When I am dead I will be: I am what I am, I am what I was, I am what I was not." "Perception is the greatest impostor of reality."

I can cite the Peterkin's post if you want, in which he referred explicitly how the death and which parameters are relevant in order to determine it like such. I simply mentioned the fact that even if a brain does not produce any electrical signal for a very short timed period, it can be considerable as "dead" (obviously not as definitive) -therefore I don't see how you connect it to stating some medical incompetence. Of course there are incompetent doctors: do you know the principle of statistics? The more people are actually doctors - the more probability increases to have incompetent practitioners? I think that's logical enough. According to my assumptions, nowadays the number of medical practitioners is relatively higher than how it was during the history.

" Is the brain dead person really dead? - Issues in defining biological death - certain pitfalls merit consideration while evaluating for brainstem death confirmation:[8][9] The inexperience of the performing physician Potential confounders - such as hypothermia, drugs, alcohol Inadequate consideration during apnea test- such as low pCO2, ventilator trigger settings False Positive Brain Death Determination in scenarios such as barbiturate coma, baclofen toxicity False Negative Brain Death Determination- spinal reflexes and automatisms, ventilator auto-triggering during the apnea test Brain Death in Children- From 37 weeks of gestational age to 30 days, two examinations 24 hours apart whereas in 30 days to 18 years child, two examinations 12 hours apart Limitations of Ancillary Tests- artifacts in EEG Concerns relating to families and potential Organ donation such as personal and religious beliefs Failure to Maintain adequate environment for Organ donation -Systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg, urine output of at least 0.5 ml/kg/h; normal serum electrolytes and a tidal volume, not more than 8 ml/kg" As you can see, it is well-known that the incompetence of the medical practitioners may be a reason of premature deaths, exactly how I indicated as a possible factor of resuscitation on certain cases in my thesis, clearly you haven't read it. However, the fact that observation is done for a limited-defined-time because of an established literature information does not provide any scientifical reason to make it universal. Regarding your first citation, isn't it obvious that brain death from cortex actually is what constitutes death - therefore what I have been remarking till now? Like I said, even if the brain ceases the activities for a single instant it is considerable as "dead", but further observation is required in order to establish a definitive death (which are referred, as you stated, by literature). You might say that occasional medical incompetence isn't related to a mechanical functioning, I might agree on this, but "occasional" medical incompetence can never be shown whether a patient will produce life-evident-signs out of the temporal boundary limit.

That is the point; I guess that it should be not up to me, nor you, nor literature, nor anyone to define the appropriate times for a definitive announcement of death. It should be a unique scientifical definition. It isn't. I thought I made it clear, I apologize in case I wasn't able to do so. This is why the topic's title is written as an experiment, not a conclusion, not a "law", not a rule. It's an experiment based from certain assumptions, which I explained thousands of times till now; experiments are done for researching purposes, they do not contain any actual conclusion inside before they are performed. You have been asked to supply a dispute for my last statements, not repeating your previous statements which were clearly referred to other kind of claims.

Yet, everything you mentioned is completely off topic and most of your posts are tendentious, without any interest in discussing the topic even. I have been asking for that question and I haven't seen an actual response except the "science-sticks-to-facts", "you-are-no-proving-anything", "you-have-no-evidence-to-pull-interest". Feel free to post your disputes.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.