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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
That is different from what you have asked in your opening post.
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.
I guess that I don’t follow the reasoning which connects determination of death and the element of time.
On the one hand there is the idea of “confirm death in real-time” and on the other hand the idea that the person is “dead for days”, “dead forever” and “dead permanently”.
Time is not an element in death, because if there is death, then there, which is nowhere, there is no time
In no time, there cannot be death ,unless death be conceived as an absolute.
Death can be only described in terms of a process of dying, the absolute can only be understood as change from this to that. Once ‘this’ to ‘that’ is severed, there is no one to account for bones and other remains as belonging to whom,
THEN no one identifiable is dead. There is an indisputable connection with identity and death, as is with identity and life
Therefore it may safely be said, that identity is the key in recognizing life and death. The idea of absolutes are.applicable to both, therefore minimizing the difference between them. Time only progresses to be only a quantum of difference between life and death, implying the functional difference approaching zero