Have you contemplated your own mortality?

[Liquid Len]

greatness said:

Although I must say, everyone (from all types of backgrounds) who has temporarily died (as in had a cardiac arrest or something and then been revived) has said that it is a wonderful experience.

Not really; according to more recent studies it's only a small fraction (I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's less than 10%). Most patients remember nothing. And there are even some who report having had distressful experiences (like hellish scenarios).

[Ilmatar]

My both grandfathers well into their eighties, even if my maternal grandfather had anything but a healthy lifestyle. My both grandmothers are still alive. My grandparent's female siblings have mostly lived into their nineties. Therefore, unless I'll get cancer there's a chance I'll live well into my 90's too. I'm not so much afraid of the death, but the physical decline. Facing the death of the loved ones will be even harder.

[dukeofpain]

Although I must say, everyone (from all types of backgrounds) who has temporarily died (as in had a cardiac arrest or something and then been revived) has said that it is a wonderful experience.

You can't temporarily die. If you die you're dead. It's not called death if you can "come back to life". They were never dead in the first place.

[MC anunnaki]

cheeks said:

I'm not so much afraid of the death, but the physical decline. Facing the death of the loved ones will be even harder.

Same here, I fear the death of my loved ones more than I fear my own. I can actually get sad by thinking that one day my sweet daughter will be old and wrinkled and die. Weird, I mean it's not like I'll be here when that happens, but the mere thought is depressing. My own death doesn't scare me. I just hope I go out with a blast, sort of what Begbie described. I certainly don't want to rot away in some nursery home, alone and forgotten. I'd rather die young than see that happen.

[nockwasright]

Would anyone instead like to go on with his/her life forever? As not dying implies you have to keep on living. Imagine the boredom.

[dukeofpain]

nockwasright said:

Would anyone instead like to go on with his/her life forever? As not dying implies you have to keep on living. Imagine the boredom.

No, I would much rather just cease to exist.

[Liquid Len]

dukeofpain said:

You can't temporarily die. If you die you're dead. It's not called death if you can "come back to life". They were never dead in the first place.

Let's put it that way: They had a cardiac arrest, i.e. their heart wasn't beating anymore. In such a case, the brain stops working within a few seconds, because there's no blood circulation and no supply with oxygene in the brain. Normally, after some minutes your brain will be severely damaged, and you can't be reanimated anymore. Then you're brain-dead too, that's the difference. But as I said, as far as we know, the brain doesn't work for a long time without heart beat. So IMO the problem with such NDE (near death experience) cases isn't that they weren't brain-dead. No, it's much more problematic to prove that they had their NDE during their cardiac arrest, and not shortly before and after it. As you can imagine, it's very hard to verify the exact time when such a subjective experience took place.

[Crimson Guard]

"The Alpha... and the Omega... death and rebirth... and as you die, so will I be reborn"!

An old Scorpio phrase,lol!

[Liquid Len]

nockwasright said:

Would anyone instead like to go on with his/her life forever? As not dying implies you have to keep on living. Imagine the boredom.

That's what I was discussing, too. Definitely, there would have to be new challenges and possibilities. An eternal life on earth would indeed be horrid.

[dukeofpain]

waldm said:

dukeofpain said:

You can't temporarily die. If you die you're dead. It's not called death if you can "come back to life". They were never dead in the first place.

Let's put it that way: They had a cardiac arrest, i.e. their heart wasn't beating anymore. In such a case, the brain stops working within a few seconds, because there's no blood circulation and no supply with oxygene in the brain. Normally, after some minutes your brain will be severely damaged, and you can't be reanimated anymore. Then you're brain-dead too, that's the difference. But as I said, as far as we know, the brain doesn't work for a long time without heart beat. So IMO the problem with such NDE (near death experience) cases isn't that they weren't brain-dead. No, it's much more problematic to prove that they had their NDE during their cardiac arrest, and not shortly before and after it. As you can imagine, it's very hard to verify the exact time when such a subjective experience took place.

Regardless, even if it could be proven that they had the experience after their blood stopped pumping, doesn't change anything, it doesn't make it anymore likely that it WASN'T just synaptic misfirings or something of the like. The difference between say falling asleep and having a "Near Death Experience" is that during the latter they, the people whom experienced it, obviously, as the name suggests, came close to death. Though that doesn't make there experience of any greater importance than falling asleep or being anesthetized.

[Liquid Len]

dukeofpain said:

Regardless, even if it could be proven that they had the experience after their blood stopped pumping, doesn't change anything, it doesn't make it anymore likely that it WASN'T just synaptic misfirings or something of the like.

NDEs are very vivid, intense and subjectively impressive, they can hardly be produced by some isolated brain cells firing here and there. And the visual cortex is on the brain surface anyway, its activity is easily measured. Such visual impressions can't be ascribed to hidden activities deep inside the brain, at least without changing our theories how the brain works. Furthermore it's just physically impossible that the brain works much without energy supply.

dukeofpain said:

The difference between say falling asleep and having a "Near Death Experience" is that during the latter they, the people whom experienced it, obviously, as the name suggests, came close to death.

Do you think a mere designation can prove that they were not dead?
It's of course a question of definition what we want to call "dead" and what not; it's a quarrel about words - whereas the facts I mentioned remain the same.

dukeofpain said:

Though that doesn't make there experience of any greater importance than falling asleep or being anesthetized.

The interesting question in the context of NDEs is obviously if they can provide a proof for subjective experiences without brain activity (so far they couldn't).
This question doesn't suggest itself in the context of dreams.

[murphee]

A bit off-topic, but this has been on my mind a lot recently...enough where I wake up in the middle of the night and think about it. Richmond, Virginia, the murders on New Year's Day and after...and before. Home invasions...Violent death, along with spouse and children. Note: the murderers were Black, the victims White and Black.
Harvey family: the Dad was a rock musician, well known in '80's indie scene, the Mom was a joke and toy shop owner, extremely popular, good parents of a 4 and 9 year-old-girl.
Baskervilles: the daughter was a friend of the killers, her decent parents killed also.
I don't fear natural death...

www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/HTMLPage/RTD_HTMLPage&c=HTMLPage&cid=1128769179086

[dukeofpain]

NDEs are very vivid, intense and subjectively impressive, they can hardly be produced by some isolated brain cells firing here and there. And the visual cortex is on the brain surface anyway, its activity is easily measured. Such visual impressions can't be ascribed to hidden activities deep inside the brain, at least without changing our theories how the brain works. Furthermore it's just physically impossible that the brain works much without energy supply.

Really, so are you schooled in the workings of the human brain and what it can and cannot during these so-called death-experiences? Or are you just presuming that when someones blood stops pumping renders their brain impotent?

Do you think a mere designation can prove that they were not dead?
It's of course a question of definition what we want to call "dead" and what not; it's a quarrel about words - whereas the facts I mentioned remain the same.

Death means going beyond the threshold of possible life. If a human is recessitated, that is, to the point where they have memory and the ability to relay their experience, it would only be possible if their brain was, throughout the experience, not compromised. Which it would've been had there been irreversible brain trauma that follows lack of oxygen. So It's my opinion that if the persons brain was at all times still "alive" and safe and functionable, I see no reason to attribute it to anything but some type of brain activity, since I know for a fact that a brain experience things, whereas, say a rock, doesn't.

The interesting question in the context of NDEs is obviously if they can provide a proof for subjective experiences without brain activity (so far they couldn't).
This question doesn't suggest itself in the context of dreams.

Usually when someone is near dead, the doctors spend their time trying to save the person, not give him a catscan, than recessitate, then ask him if he saw some sort of tunnel.

[Liquid Len]

dukeofpain said:

Really, so are you schooled in the workings of the human brain and what it can and cannot during these so-called death-experiences?

I suppose this is a rhetorical question.

dukeofpain said:

Or are you just presuming that when someones blood stops pumping renders their brain impotent?

Obviously not, since I've mentioned other arguments, too.
However, I heard a doctor saying so, and I see no reason to mistrust that (it could easily be checked by a glance into the medical literature), and besides it seems just logical.

dukeofpain said:

Death means going beyond the threshold of possible life. If a human is recessitated, that is, to the point where they have memory and the ability to relay their experience, it would only be possible if their brain was, throughout the experience, not compromised. Which it would've been had there been irreversible brain trauma that follows lack of oxygen. So It's my opinion that if the persons brain was at all times still "alive" and safe and functionable, I see no reason to attribute it to anything but some type of brain activity,

Just the fact that a brain is able to work doesn't guarantee that it is always working.

dukeofpain said:

I know for a fact that a brain experience things,

How come? I'd love to share your confidence.

dukeofpain said:

Usually when someone is near dead, the doctors spend their time trying to save the person, not give him a catscan,

Indeed; but in some circumstances it happens that the brain activity gets supervised while a person is near death (as you call it). I know of a case where the patient (Pam Reynolds) had a NDE during an operation where she was clinically dead for quite a long time; her brain was supervised with an EEG and additionally with a device to cover the brain stem, and no brain activity could be detected (as it was planned before the operation: They wanted to stop the brain activity and drain the blood out of the brain in order to facilitate the brain surgery).

[Liquid Len]

A possible explanation for NDEs during cardiac arrest I've come across:
The cardiac massage produces of course some blood flow to the brain. In some cases it is strong enough to enable conscious experience to take place, albeit the heart is not beating.