surreptitious57, thank you, I am aware of it’s pagan origins and practices.
Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Deuteronomy 12:32
surreptitious57, thank you, I am aware of it’s pagan origins and practices.
Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Deuteronomy 12:32
Living souls, never dying souls.
I shall return with my scriptural evidence I am certain. [-o<
with love,
sanjay
All that technical things are not a issue here. What if the body is kept in cold condition to avoid decomposition?
Oh??
So now the body is flash-frozen to preserve it??? And subsequently if it is thawed out and the person resurrected? (Assuming one has the technical ability to do this.)
This seems to run up into a logical problem … you could potentially flash-freeze a live person and then ‘revive’ him.
So if you flash-freeze a person at the moment of death, how do you that he is effectively dead? You lost that period of time after death which confirms that the person is really dead. Was that actually “the moment of death” or not? You don’t know.
All that technical things are not a issue here. What if the body is kept in cold condition to avoid decomposition?
Oh??
So now the body is flash-frozen to preserve it???
I have not said anything like that. My answer is just to address the issue of decomposition.
And subsequently if it is thawed out and the person resurrected? (Assuming one has the technical ability to do this.)
Is it possible?
This seems to run up into a logical problem … you could potentially flash-freeze a live person and then ‘revive’ him.
Again, is it possible by all scientific means and knowledge we have till date?
So if you flash-freeze a person at the moment of death, how do you that he is effectively dead?
By the established benchmarks like absence of breath, heartbeat and brain activity etc.
You lost that period of time after death which confirms that the person is really dead. Was that actually “the moment of death” or not? You don’t know.
The actual moment of the death is not important. The only thing which is important is whether one becomes dead once or not.
with love,
sanjay
Secondly phyllo, i am not going to use any such thing/theory in my reasoning which has not be empirically proved yet. I will rely on only such things which are proven scientifically and anyone can confirm it.
with love,
sanjay
I’m not sure why you brought up the idea of keeping the body cold in order to avoid decomposition.
Does this discussion of death depend on preserving the body or not?
I’m not sure why you brought up the idea of keeping the body cold in order to avoid decomposition.
Does this discussion of death depend on preserving the body or not?
The issue of keeping in the cold comes only because pilgrim seeker tom said that the body will start decomposing afetr three days.
As i said above, preserving the body is a not a issue here. The only issue e\relevant here is whether one is declared once dead according to our establish medical/scientific benchmarks or not.
with love,
sanjay
[b]
All that technical things are not a issue here. What if the body is kept in cold condition to avoid decomposition?
[/b]
Sanjay … thanks for addressing my question. Body decomposition is not universal … apparently there are numerous exceptions to the norm … Ste Bernadette comes to mind. I observed her corpse in Nevers France … while some cosmetic work has been acknowledge it remains a wonder/mystery.
Recovery from “Clinical Death” is not new … though the time frame between death and recovery is always only a few minutes. Your story mentions “since several weeks” … an example in a league of it’s own.
[b]
Is There Life After Death? Study Suggests Consciousness Continues After Heartbeat Stops
[/b]
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 … 50582.html
While I can’t say I ‘know’ it is possible … I believe it is possible.
There are all these places people have concocted, rather than accept that the dead know nothing.
Living souls, never dying souls.
I shall return with my scriptural evidence I am certain. [-o<
2 Kings 2:11
[b]
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father!
[/b]
The Biblical chatter about Elijah’s return to life on earth are too many to mention.
zinnat
Are you referring to the yogis who claim to be able to stop the heart beating? I recall something about this when I visited India.
Nevertheless, the scientific evidence is slim to none that yogis can voluntarily stop their heart.
zinnat
Are you referring to the yogis who claim to be able to stop the heart beating? I recall something about this when I visited India.
Nevertheless, the scientific evidence is slim to none that yogis can voluntarily stop their heart.
No, i am not talking about yogies.
By the way, there is no such yogi who can stop breathing, lose the pulse and heartbeat even for one hour and becomes alive again. If anyone claims so, he is simply lying.
with love,
sanjay
I think i have waited enough for replies. I will present my argument tomorrow.
with love,
sanjay
Sorry for the delay. Next post follows in an hour.
with love,
sanjay
There is a breed of frog found in Alaska which is called woodfrog. Its botanical name is Rana sylvatica. We all know that frogs go into hibernation in winters. Woodfrog does the same but it goes far beyond normal hibernation.
As the wood frog is freezing, its heart continues pumping the protective glucose around its body, but the frog’s heart slows and eventually stops. All other organs stop functioning. The frog doesn’t use oxygen and actually appears to be dead. In fact, if you opened up a frozen frog, the organs would look like “beef jerky” and the frozen water around the organs like a “snow cone,” says Jon Costanzo, a physiological ecologist at Miami University in Ohio who studies freeze-tolerance.
When in its frogcicle state, as much as 70 percent of the water in a frog’s body can be frozen, write researchers Jack Layne and Richard Lee in their 1995 article (pdf) in Climate Research. Frogs can survive all winter like this, undergoing cycles of freezing and thawing.
As the frog freezes solid like a Popsicle, its heart stops, blood flow and breathing cease, and brain activity disappears. It is clinically dead, and it remains this way for weeks at a time. In spring the frog thaws and miraculously comes back to life, leaping and jumping around only hours after being as stiff as a brick.
Does winter here wipe out large numbers of wood frogs—or are they hardier than we think? Don Larson, a PhD student at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, studied wood frogs both in the lab and the Alaskan forests to look for the answer.
Larson and his coauthors found 18 wood frogs that were preparing for winter and put temperature sensors into their hiding places. They held other frogs in outdoor enclosures or brought them into the lab to be frozen artificially. (Video taken of the enclosure frogs, below, showed that the animals create holes for themselves under the leaf litter by spinning in circles—like a dog settling down for a nap. If uncovered by a scientist, the frogs dug back down until they were hidden again.)
Frogs in the wild stayed frozen for an average of 193 days. During this time, sensors showed that the temperature in their habitats averaged –6.3°C (21°F). At some points, temperatures dropped as low as –18.1°C, or just below 0 Fahrenheit. Despite the conditions, which were worse than anything recorded for wood frogs before, every frog survived.
I accidentally came to know about this while searching on the net for something else. I became curious and looked into the reasons. The survival of the woodfrogs happens due to a very special chemical procedure. When ice touches the skin of a woodfrog, it starts increasing the sugar level into some cells, which goes as high as 13 times than the normal. This high level of concentration of sugar in some cells save those from freezing. in other words, one can say that these cells remain alive during hibernation.
So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?
with love,
sanjay
So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?
But humans don’t have the same physiology as frogs.
When I asked if preserving the body was significant to this discussion, you said “no”. So now I’m confused because freezing clearly prevents bacteria and other agents of decay (molds and fungus) from destroying the frog’s body.
There is a breed of frog found in Alaska which is called woodfrog. Its botanical name is Rana sylvatica. We all know that frogs go into hibernation in winters. Woodfrog does the same but it goes far beyond normal hibernation.
I accidentally came to know about this while searching on the net for something else. I became curious and looked into the reasons. The survival of the woodfrogs happens due to a very special chemical procedure. When ice touches the skin of a woodfrog, it starts increasing the sugar level into some cells, which goes as high as 13 times than the normal. This high level of concentration of sugar in some cells save those from freezing. in other words, one can say that these cells remain alive during hibernation.
So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
No. There is still heartbeat and brain activity.
[u]Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
No.
Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?
That is different from what you have asked in your opening post.
What is death?
How we should define death?
How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure?
zinnat:What is death?
Death is “absence of life”.
zinnat:How we should define death?
The shortest definition is certainly “absence of life”.
zinnat:How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure?
- Knowing that there is no heartbeat of this one.
- Knowing that there is no brain activity of this one.
- Knowing after observing this very probably dead one further over a certain time (at least three days).
There is in fact “something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive” but that doesn’t answer your three questions.
If the process of keeping a living being alive is very economical, very spare, then this doesn’t mean that this living being is dead.
Your example says something about how economically a body can work, but it doesn’t answer your three questions.
the most relevant definition of death for me is that I will no longer think or feel.
So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?But humans don’t have the same physiology as frogs.
What do you want to say?
Are you saying that woodfrogs should have judged by the different benchmarks of death?
And, if so, why, given that they also have pulse, heartbeat and brain activity like other specices?When I asked if preserving the body was significant to this discussion, you said “no”. So now I’m confused because freezing clearly prevents bacteria and other agents of decay (molds and fungus) from destroying the frog’s body.
The issue was never about the decomposition/preservation of the body but deciding how we use to confirm death in realtime. That is why i said no…
with love,
sanjay
zinnat:There is a breed of frog found in Alaska which is called woodfrog. Its botanical name is Rana sylvatica. We all know that frogs go into hibernation in winters. Woodfrog does the same but it goes far beyond normal hibernation.
I accidentally came to know about this while searching on the net for something else. I became curious and looked into the reasons. The survival of the woodfrogs happens due to a very special chemical procedure. When ice touches the skin of a woodfrog, it starts increasing the sugar level into some cells, which goes as high as 13 times than the normal. This high level of concentration of sugar in some cells save those from freezing. in other words, one can say that these cells remain alive during hibernation.
So, does they not become clinically dead before coming to life again?
No. There is still heartbeat and brain activity.
I think that you should read about woodfrogs a little more before making that claim.
zinnat:[u]Does that not mean that the death of mere brain is not enough to be dead forever?
No.
zinnat:Does that also not mean that there must be something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive?
That is different from what you have asked in your opening post.
The OP was about the defining the death thus this is also completely relevant also.
zinnat:What is death?
How we should define death?
How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure? Alf: zinnat:What is death?
Death is “absence of life”.
zinnat:How we should define death?
The shortest definition is certainly “absence of life”.
zinnat:How can we know that one is now dead permanently for sure?
- Knowing that there is no heartbeat of this one.
- Knowing that there is no brain activity of this one.
- Knowing after observing this very probably dead one further over a certain time (at least three days).
There is in fact “something else other than heartbeat and brain which keeps them alive” but that doesn’t answer your three questions.
I am not answering the questions but suggesting that answers provided by others are wrong for sure.
If the process of keeping a living being alive is very economical, very spare, then this doesn’t mean that this living being is dead.
Now, seeing my argument, you are stepping aside from your previous position, where you mentioned clinical death.
Are you now saying that absence of heartbeat, pulse and brain activity for days are enough to decide death?Your example says something about how economically a body can work, but it doesn’t answer your three questions.
I am not claiming either that i have answered those questions. My claim is merely that all provided answers were wrong.
with love,
sanjay