What's it like to be dead?

Yes. Which is one of the reasons I wrote:

No, Malf, don't be daft


Pam Reynolds underwent surgery at the Barrow Institute in Phoenix, performed by Dr. Robert Spetzler. The operation called for her body temperature to be lowered to 60 degrees, her brain waves flattened, her heart stopped, her breathing stopped, and the blood drained from her head. By medical standards, she was dead.


Watch and learn :-)
 
Last edited:
Guys :
There is no such thing as the near death experiences : one is either dead or not , not almost dead or half dead ... lol

To assert that one dies a bit and then returns to life is a logical fallacy , to say the least : when one dies , one does not return to life . One is either dead or not ...
Or is it that very little is understood about "death". It is only recently that the medical sciences have realised death appears to be a process. That there may be certain stages of death in which the process can be reversed until a certain point where it can no longer be and certain death is inevitable. But maybe not. If you look at some NDEs, they appear to have come back from what appears to be "irreversible" bodily damage, most notably that of Natalie Sudman who claims her and another being "worked on" her body to restore it to a state where she could reenter it.

One should refrain from stating absolutes. Reality itself cannot be stated as an absolute, much less anything contained within that "reality". But absolutes seem to be like a warm comfort to most, especially those on both sides of the fringe. Stating things as absolutely so, seems to be an attempt at making the person stating these absolutes feel as though they have knowledge and understanding of what may only be unknowable. Ambiguity is an uncomfortable position for humans. We like to believe we understand our world, that we have absolute knowledge. When really, very little, if anything, appears to be absolute at all. Humans hate admitting that none of us truly understand much of anything.
 
I'm afraid you are wrong, Nassim. When the heart stops beating there is no respiratory effort, the pupils dilate and all electrical activity ceases in the brain after 10-30 seconds. This is the first stage of death and the person is referred to by clinicians as being dead. The patient may not stay dead but if nothing is done to revive him/her then said patient will stay dead.

I know what you mean, Tim, and there is even what is so bombastically called the science of "erasing death " that can "bring dead people back to life " even after extensive periods of "clinical death " as this following book shows :

http://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Death-Science-Rewriting-Boundaries-ebook/dp/B0089LOFWG

But , in fact : that just means that as technology and science advance .... people do get more opportunities to be saved from death , that does not mean they get brought back to life from death .

Once again : to assert that one was "dead " during some minutes or more and then one gets brought back to life is non-sense : when one really dies , one does not come back .

"I was dead for some minutes " and then brought back to life is a contradiction : when you really die , you are really dead = there are no such things as near death experiences , half death experiences , quarter death experiences lol ...
 
Last edited:
Or is it that very little is understood about "death". It is only recently that the medical sciences have realised death appears to be a process. That there may be certain stages of death in which the process can be reversed until a certain point where it can no longer be and certain death is inevitable. But maybe not. If you look at some NDEs, they appear to have come back from what appears to be "irreversible" bodily damage, most notably that of Natalie Sudman who claims her and another being "worked on" her body to restore it to a state where she could reenter it.

One should refrain from stating absolutes. Reality itself cannot be stated as an absolute, much less anything contained within that "reality". But absolutes seem to be like a warm comfort to most, especially those on both sides of the fringe. Stating things as absolutely so, seems to be an attempt at making the person stating these absolutes feel as though they have knowledge and understanding of what may only be unknowable. Ambiguity is an uncomfortable position for humans. We like to believe we understand our world, that we have absolute knowledge. When really, very little, if anything, appears to be absolute at all. Humans hate admitting that none of us truly understand much of anything.

"Reversing the process of death " is what this book is all about :

http://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Death-Science-Rewriting-Boundaries-ebook/dp/B0089LOFWG

But that's just a misleading concept : it just means what i said here above to ... Tim .

It's almost the same as the fact that the life span of modern man gets "extended or prolonged " thanks to science and technology : the latter do not "reverse the process of death " , they just are able to make a relatively better life for modern man ...and hence the latter 's life span gets "extended " .

Furthermore, death is an absolute certainty in the following double sense :

Death is absolutely certain and absolute certainty does exist only after ...death or is death .

The only absolute certainty in life is death that makes part of life ,and we start dying the sec we are ...born .
 
Last edited:
This is precisely as stated by debunkers and sceptics.

Nevermind : when one really does cross the "boundary " between life and death , one does not come back .
Death does not play games : it is deadly serious . lol

When your time comes to die , you don't get a sec more or less to live .
 
I know what you mean, Tim, and there is even what is so bombastically called the science of "erasing death " that can "bring dead people back to life " even after extensive periods of "clinical death " as this following book shows :

http://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Death-Science-Rewriting-Boundaries-ebook/dp/B0089LOFWG

But , in fact : that just means that as technology and science advance .... people do get more opportunities to be saved from death , that does not mean they get brought back to life from death .

Once again : to assert that one was "dead " during some minutes or more and then one gets brought back to life is non-sense : when one really dies , one does not come back .

"I was dead for some minutes " and then brought back to life is a contradiction : when you really die , you are really dead = there are no such things as near death experiences , half death experiences , quarter death experiences lol ...

Thanks for the reply, Nassim

The mistake you are making is a common one based on old fashioned ideas that no longer apply because the rules have changed. People are now being brought back from death after many hours. They have...REALLY DIED....and been REALLY brought back. These people would have been wheeled off into the mortuary years ago after being pronounced dead but the technology is so advanced now, it's difficult to know when resuscitation should be stopped.

There is no reliable way to make the call, do we continue or do we stop, it's just down to the opinion of the doctors on call at the time.
 
Again, the confusion between clinical death and biological death. Why does this even keep doing the rounds?

No NDErs have been biologically dead.
 
Again, the confusion between clinical death and biological death. Why does this even keep doing the rounds?

No NDErs have been biologically dead.

You don't need to be biologically dead to be dead. If someone stops your heart right now in a crude procedure such as severing an artery, you are dead and will stay dead. But if a doctor can get to your heart before your brain cells become too badly damaged and fixes the problem surgically, you will have come back from death.

You don't seem to get this Kai, you're stuck somehow fiddling with semantics.
 
You don't need to be biologically dead to be dead. If someone stops your heart right now in a crude procedure such as severing an artery, you are dead and will stay dead. But if a doctor can get to your heart before your brain cells become too badly damaged and fixes the problem surgically, you will have come back from death.

You don't seem to get this Kai, you're stuck somehow fiddling with semantics.

You are conflating biological death with states of incapacity that lead to death. The person you are describing is still alive biologically. Their cells are still capable of metabolism. The only reason that the doctor could "get to the heart before the brain cells become too damaged" is because biological death has not yet occurred...although it is a process *and* a break.
 
You are conflating biological death with states of incapacity that lead to death. The person you are describing is still alive biologically. Their cells are still capable of metabolism. The only reason that the doctor could "get to the heart before the brain cells become too damaged" is because biological death has not yet occurred...although it is a process *and* a break.

Biological death ie irreversible decay of cells is not anymore dead than someone who has just been be-headed . One second after the head rolls onto the floor, the cells in the de-capitated body including the head are NOT dead. Are you therefore going to tell us that if you chopped off Malf's head (or better still Linda's only joking) and took the two parts to the Police station, you would be able to use the alibi ....here is someone I have just killed but she is NOT dead ??
I mean are you serious ?

Pam Reynolds was chilled to a tombstone 60 degrees F, her heart was stopped she had no respiration and just in case you think she was not dead, there was hardly any blood in her body. What on earth is she then ? Ready for a good knees up ?
 
Ambiguity is an uncomfortable position for humans. We like to believe we understand our world, that we have absolute knowledge.
Ambiguity may be part of the nature of this existence. Just today, something I read in a post on these forums set me musing on some experiences which took place as a child, with my now-deceased father. As I had those thoughts, something inexplicable occurred with an electric light in my room - it flickered on briefly a couple of times even though the switch was firmly in the 'off' position. It was ambiguous as it seemed to both contradict and support my train of thought at the time. The desire for certainty may be to reach for an unreachable goal.
 
I'd also like to mention that Reddit appears to be heavily biased against anything remotely suggesting a nonphysical basis for anything. A search for "near death experience" filtered by top threads and newest threads suggests most Redditors have no idea what an NDE is (confusing "I almost got ran over and was like, that was close" with "I got ran over and was like, what's my body doing down there?"), have done little to no research on it, and IMO are in psychological denial about death and the implications of psi phenomena and NDEs.
 
I'd also like to mention that Reddit appears to be heavily biased against anything remotely suggesting a nonphysical basis for anything. A search for "near death experience" filtered by top threads and newest threads suggests most Redditors have no idea what an NDE is (confusing "I almost got ran over and was like, that was close" with "I got ran over and was like, what's my body doing down there?"), have done little to no research on it, and IMO are in psychological denial about death and the implications of psi phenomena and NDEs.

Its reddit afterall. All your kids from the newage are there, including all the hip young students of the biological, chemical and physical arts of nature. Its basically a big hole for everyone who's riding the "modern science" train. As long as you have a white coat and a doctor title in any natural science you are close to being infallible there. And if you ever had a unique experience that corresponds to mainstream science - hell you got your audience right there on reddit.

The last 2 sentences are atleast my impression. That may differ for you guys.
 
Biological death ie irreversible decay of cells is not anymore dead than someone who has just been be-headed . One second after the head rolls onto the floor, the cells in the de-capitated body including the head are NOT dead. Are you therefore going to tell us that if you chopped off Malf's head (or better still Linda's only joking) and took the two parts to the Police station, you would be able to use the alibi ....here is someone I have just killed but she is NOT dead ??
I mean are you serious ?

Pam Reynolds was chilled to a tombstone 60 degrees F, her heart was stopped she had no respiration and just in case you think she was not dead, there was hardly any blood in her body. What on earth is she then ? Ready for a good knees up ?

This still misunderstands key things. I mentioned in the last post that death is a process and a break. The "break" can make biological death irreversibly inevitable,but it is not yet biological death. So to take your first example, yes that person is still biologically alive one second (and for that matter, probably for some minutes) after decapitation. If you rushed some cells under an imaginary perfect microscope with no artifact creation and zero prep time, you would still see living structures and (briefly) at least some tail ends of living metabolism. Do you grasp this? The body has experienced a break however (pun intended) and that break has now made biological death inevitable. For all we know that person could be having a rather brief near death experience (though I deem it unlikely due to the shock to the brain stem).
 
Pam Reynolds was chilled to a tombstone 60 degrees F, her heart was stopped she had no respiration and just in case you think she was not dead, there was hardly any blood in her body. What on earth is she then ? Ready for a good knees up ?

I agree. I mean come on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
ere is someone I have just killed but she is NOT dead ??

Pam Reynolds was chilled to a tombstone 60 degrees F, her heart was stopped she had no respiration and just in case you think she was not dead, there was hardly any blood in her body. What on earth is she then ? Ready for a good knees up ?

SInce a *break* has not occurred (see above) she is in a state of temporary stasis, which is in principle reversible. Again, this shouldn't really need a discussion.
 
This still misunderstands key things. I mentioned in the last post that death is a process and a break. The "break" can make biological death irreversibly inevitable,but it is not yet biological death. So to take your first example, yes that person is still biologically alive one second (and for that matter, probably for some minutes) after decapitation. If you rushed some cells under an imaginary perfect microscope with no artifact creation and zero prep time, you would still see living structures and (briefly) at least some tail ends of living metabolism. Do you grasp this? The body has experienced a break however (pun intended) and that break has now made biological death inevitable. For all we know that person could be having a rather brief near death experience (though I deem it unlikely due to the shock to the brain stem).

"....at least some tail ends of living metabolism."

"Do you grasp this?"

Kai, believe it or not :-) the tail ends of living metabolism are not what makes us human or alive or vital. If that was the case we would be happy to sit dear old dead Grandpa back in his favourite chair until he had fully biologically decomposed.

Do you grasp this ?
 
SInce a *break* has not occurred (see above) she is in a state of temporary stasis, which is in principle reversible. Again, this shouldn't really need a discussion.

She was not in a state of inactivity (stasis) ..she was dead. If Spetzler had decided to walk away from the operation after the blood had been drained from her head (or even before of course) he would very likely have been charged with murder or whatever the medical equivalent is for gross medical negligence of duty etc etc
 
Back
Top