Is it possible to bring dead people back to life?

[Boojatta]

[The Deacon]

1. Sure

Look at Cheney & Rumsfeld - they died sometime during the Nixon Administration

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Shit. I thought this was gonna be a thread about

the political rehabilitation of Al Gore.

[Boojatta]

3. Is this an example of a non-human animal that can return to life?

Alternatively, would you say that it is not dead when it is frozen?

Q: Can a frog be frozen underwater or in a block of solid ice? Or would it destroy the frog from being crushed or suffocated?

A: Theoretically, we could probably freeze a frog into a block of ice although this is not how they would freeze naturally. I do not think the frog would be either crushed or suffocated. When a frog is frozen it is not breathing and has no blood circulation so the animal has to be able to survive for a long time without oxygen and this is an adaptation that wood frogs have. However, often when people ask us about freezing a frog in a block of ice (and we get asked quite often!!), they are (a) thinking about freezing the animal in their home freezer and (b) thinking about freezing a common pond frog like a leopard frog or bullfrog. Neither of these will work. Firstly, your home freezer is usually about -15 degrees Celsius which is far too cold for a frog to survive; you need to freeze the animal at about -2 to -3 degrees Celsius to guarantee its survival. Secondly, only a very few species of frogs survive freezing in nature and they are generally quite hard to find and never the common frogs that you find around ponds and rivers. So, the message is - do not try this at home!

Source

[varkam]

4. I would say that it's just not dead.

Death, as far as I understand the word, is something that you don't come back from. You might hear stories about people coming back to life after being pronounced dead by a physician. I think the more plausible explanation is just that the doctor screwed up - the person may have been almost dead, or may have appeared to be dead, but they weren't actually dead (because they're still alive) :)

[Boojatta]

7. If you could chop a person's head off completely with a rusty axe and

a week later re-attach the head and make it possible for the person to return to an active lifestyle, then would you say that the person was not dead during the week that the head was off?

Note: I'm not responding to your opinion regarding the wood frog. I'm responding to this: "Death, as far as I understand the word, is something that you don't come back from."

[varkam]

8. I take it that if you chop a person's head completely off...

...with a rusty axe, then they are going to die. There is no re-attaching it a week later. In the time span of a few minutes, the brain will have died due to a lack of oxygen. That is how death is termed currently, as the brain cannot be "restarted" in the same fashion a heart can.

If we're speaking hypothetically here, however...if there were some way that you could keep the brain oxygenated during the week it is kept seperate from the body, then I would think that person would still be alive.

[Boojatta]

10. Are you assuming that the process of destruction is irreversible?

Are you assuming that it would be impossible to make a complete record of the physical structure of the head before it is chopped off?

Are you assuming that it would not be physically possible to take all required steps to transform a dead head back to a living head?

[varkam]

11. I do assume those things...

under the constraints of how we currently understand the human anatomy and, indeed, the physical universe. Perhaps one day it will not be impossible, and perhaps one day pigs will learn to fly, as well. There is very little that I will say is impossible, but currently we cannot synthesize a dead head into a living head, nor can we repair large scale neuronal death that would result from such an injury.

If we could, however, I think it would also open the door to problems of identity as well as what it means to die.

[beam me up scottie]

12. You've obviously

never seen any of the Re-Animator movies!

[Orrex]

14. "Damn it, it wasn't *quite* fresh enough!"

Ah, the first Lovecraft film adaptation I ever saw. Love it!

[beam me up scottie]

15. It was mine as well.

H.P. Lovecraftian horror is very underrated.

[The Straight Story]

70. There was more than one???

The first one would have made Lovecraft spin in his grave :)

[Zebedeo]

9. So you are saying

that if you define death as something you don't come back from, then there's no coming back from the dead. I would agree with that.

[varkam]

13. Death is something incredibly hard to define.

And I don't mean to say that I have it figured out. I do think that a lot of cases where people supposedly "came back from the dead", those people were not actually dead in the first place. I think it's a general unawareness between the criteria of death and the notion of death. We have had several different criteria for death over the years. For example, people once took the cessation of respiration to mean that the person was dead. Then it was the beating of the heart. Now it's brain function. Perhaps in the future it will be narrowed down to neural activity in the frontal lobe.

But all of these are not death, per se. They are ways in which we try to determine if someone has crossed that threshold. Imagine that we still use, currently, the respiratory criterion of death. I work a lot with sleep apnea patients who tend to stop breathing during sleep as a result of a blockage in the airway. Sometimes the obstructions can be quite severe, lasting for up to two minutes at a time. I don't think it is the case that each time the respiration ceases that these individuals "die" and that they "come back from the dead" once respiration resumes.

Perhaps it is the same with brain function. In cases where individuals, even individuals who flatline on the EEG, are termed dead and come back to life were never actually dead. Perhaps the attending physician made a mistake. Perhaps the equipment failed. Or, perhaps, our current criterion of death is likewise flawed and a more precise criterion is out there that has a lower error rate. In my opinion, those are all much more plausible explanations that someone coming back from the dead.

So I don't mean to be circular in my assertion. Hopefully this helped explain my position a bit better.

[Boojatta]

16. Isn't there a difference between saying that something is implausible

and saying that something is logically impossible?

[varkam]

18. Of course. nt

[mzteris]

5. define "dead". n/t

[Boojatta]

17. Can you ask an equivalent question without using the word "define"?

[mzteris]

22. explain what you mean by

use of the word "dead".

What "degree" of "deadness"?

Brain dead?

Not breathing dead?

Heart stopped dead?

Deep coma "dead"?

Seemingly, but not really, DEAD?

[Boojatta]

23. Highest degree of deadness

Brain dead, not breathing, and heart stopped. Really dead and not just seemingly dead.

[mzteris]

24. then my answer is

NO.

[neebob]

25. Ah, you mean like when the coroner has thoroughly examined her

and she's not only merely dead but really most sincerely dead.

[the other one]

6. I thought I saw Elvis once.

[AlienGirl]

29. But Elvis isn't dead, so he doesn't count!

[Magic Hair]

30. Agreed

Elvis is in the hearts of all Americans crowding the streets of Las Vegas during Elvis Week, passing through back-country grocery stores, being sighted in the Pacific Northwest alongside Sasquatch, and jumping out of an airplane with twenty of his friends who look just like him.

[AlienGirl]

31. Alongside Sasquatch, eh? I hear they go way back...

[Magic Hair]

33. They share a commonality with having lots of hair...

[AlienGirl]

34. Which one uses more hair products?

[Magic Hair]

36. Elvis, of course.

I hear Sasquatch stinks to high heaven. Obviously, he doesn't bathe.

Besides, Sasquatch's hair is matted. Elvis' hair defies gravity. How else does he do it? A healthy diet and plenty of exercise? Nah, hair products! :P Or maybe he found a new use for a tub of bacon grease rather than gorging on it...

[AlienGirl]

37. Maybe he gained Perfect Hair Forever?

Do the la la la la la la la la la!

[moggie]

67. Correct

He's not dead. He just went home.

[NMMNG]

19. Yes, but they return evil and murderous

Didn't you read "Pet Sematary"?

[saltpoint]

20. Two words: Ted Stevens.

[senseIsntCommon]

21. Well, if your cleric has a high enough level...

...you can always use the spell Raise Dead. Yep. Gotta get my geek on.

*That's a D&D joke for you poor sods who don't play* :D

[Random_Australian]

26. Sorry, but I just have to do this: Define 'dead' - after all,

if you define dead as 'cannot be brought back to life' (ie. information loss rather than 'clinically dead') then no.

If you use the clinical definition, sure, I know a guy who died three times in one night. (Run over by a truck)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. If can be brought back to life then

you weren't dead.

That said, I'm totally into NDE's. I've read a lot about them and don't accept any of the counter arguments about oxygen deprivation. I don't think that oxygen deprivation would cause one to review one's life.

[Boojatta]

28. Unless you can guarantee that a particular person will never be brought

back to life, how can you say that anybody is now dead?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. WHOA

my head just exploded. I wasn't thinking that far into the future.

Well, of course Christians are told we will rise from the dead with our bodies intact, so there's that! (personally I'd like to order a replacement)

[varkam]

32. On NDEs...

A study came out recently that's proposing a mechanism different from hypoxia that could cause NDEs. In some people, there is a malfunction in the arousal system that regulates sleep (and more specifically, REM sleep - which is when we dream). What I read proposed that when people are in states of extreme arousal these can "cross over", which would mean that an NDE is essentially a waking dream. Such phenomena are often noted in people with narcolepsy, which involves that same arousal system.

It's pretty preliminary, but it's just food for thought.

[Zebedeo]

38. That would not account for

the fact that those who experience NDEs sometimes are able to describe events that occurred that they could not have physically seen - such as when they have out of body experiences and they are looking down on an accident scene or operating room table, and they can describe what occurred from that vantage point.

[varkam]

40. A response.

Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough, or perhaps I am misreading your response. If either is the case, please feel free to call me on it.

The activation of that arousal system would lead to something like a 'waking dream'. In narcoleptics, one member of what's called the "narcoleptic tetrad" - which is a cluster of signs and symptoms that often appear in narcoleptics - are hypnagogic hallucinations. These hallucinations occur when one goes to sleep and represent a cross-over between the waking mind and the sleeping mind. Now, in normal, healthy adults, it takes approximately 90-120 minutes to enter the first period of REM sleep (which, again, is when we have vivid, lifelike dreams). In narcoleptics, however, that is often reduced dramatically and can sometimes occur with sleep onset. So, in those terms, such hallucinations are not really a cross between the waking mind and the sleeping mind, but the waking mind and the dreaming mind.

That all may seem irrelevant, but remember that it's hypothesized that parts of the same arousal system that malfunctions in individuals with narcolepsy may be responsible for NDEs. If, in high stress, high arousal situations, these two usually seperate areas of consciousness converge, then I would think that would explain extremely well how individuals are able to describe things that they could not see.

on edit: I realize that I may have, in fact, misread your reply. Below is a little extra.

However, if you mean that there are individuals who were able to accurately describe things that they could not have possibly seen, then you will have to forgive me if I am a bit skeptical. I don't think that such events are logically impossible, however I think there may be other explanations available to us that are at least equally as plausible (such as various traits of memory such as it's reconstructive nature).

[Zebedeo]

41. There seems to be evidence

of NDEs that is not consistent with hallucinations.

Beyond Indigo

[varkam]

42. Seems like a good deal of pre-emprical speculation.

I'm not saying that such speculation is not interesting, or even necessary in advancing a field of study. However, such speculation is unconvincing to me that such experiences are some sort of metaphysical phenomenon. I did see the study that they did and "24 our of 26 children" reported NDEs, however they did not report any methodology, statistical analysis, or patient characteristics aside from being terminally-ill. Further, it didn't seem as if it was mentioned anywhere that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. That, together with the fact that there is no explanation of the methodology, makes me go 'Hmmmm'. Besides, if NDEs are actually part of the normal dying experience, as this author seems to suggest, then what of all the people who don't have such experiences (i.e. those 2 children).

Further, many of the anecdotal qualities of NDEs reported on that site seem to be hallucinatory in nature to me (e.g. Going to a beach, on a rocket ship to the moon), in that they can't be squared with objective reality (that is, unless NASA reported an unidentified rocket ship heading to the moon when that young child died).

Here's a quote from a section that I supposed to convince skeptics, such as myself:

Science demands verifiable evidence which can be reproduced again and again under experimental situations. Jim Whinnery, of the National Warfare Institute, thought he was simply studying the effects of G forces on fighter pilots. He had no idea he would revolutionize the field of consciousness studies by providing experimental proof that NDEs are real.

The pilots were placed in huge centrifuges and spun at tremendous speeds. After they lost consciousness, after they went into seizures, after they lost all muscle tone, when the blood stopped flowing in their brains, only then would they suddenly have a return to conscious awareness. They had "dreamlets" as Dr. Whinnery calls them

These dreamlets are similar to near death experiences. They often involved a sense of separation from the physical body. A typical dreamlet involved a pilot leaving his physical body and traveling to a sandy beach, where he looked directly up at the sun. The pilot remarked that death is very pleasant.

First off, if blood stopped flowing to the brain for a sufficient period of time to endanger death (which is not very long), then massive neuronal death resulting in significant brain damage would result. That seems completely unethical to me. Given that these tests of G forces do take place in controlled settings, I tend to think that the author is twisting the english language a little bit to achieve a desired end. Additionally, lack of blood flow to the brain does not equal dead brain. Even if the blood is not flowing, neurons are still going at it for a bit before they pop.

Even after reading through that, I'm still unconvinced that NDEs are part of the "dying experience" or take place on some sort of metaphysical plane. Given what we know about human anatomy and the universe around us, the post plausible explanations are hallucinations. That's not to say that everything I read is certainly wrong and I am absolutely correct. I will be the first to admit I could be completely wrong. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I am a skeptic at heart.

Plus, that site had a link to Thomas Kinkaid paintings. That's just bad news :)

[Zebedeo]

44. One thing on which we can certainly agree

"Plus, that site had a link to Thomas Kinkaid paintings. That's just bad news"

:hi:

[varkam]

53. LOL!

"Painter of light" my ass :)

[SPKrazy]

48. I Think That The Point Should Be

that there are experiences that have as of yet to be explained fully, or even partially.

The stats on NDE's and hypnotic phenomena associated with narcolepsy you provided are interesting, but they also don't account for even half of the people who have NDE's (correct me if I'm wrong) but they are nonetheless interesting.

I think that there is probably some heretofore undiscovered neural pathway (the Universe knows we haven't really even begun to understand the brain) that is remarkably consistent amongst NDE experiencers.

I've been amazed in talking to hospice workers who seem to have no doubt in the validity of NDE's. Now this doesn't mean they are real, but they are remarkably accurate about describing all aspects of death (when my mother was dying last year I talked with some hospice workers, and read some materials about dying that they gave me that described the death process accurately.) so when they also tell me that NDE's are not uncommon, and that people as they die often have semi NDE's as they prepare to die (dying is not just an act of cessation of the bodily functions, it also is to a large degree in many situations, an act of the will to let go)

[varkam]

54. I'm not exactly sure what the whole story is, either.

The authors of the study I mentioned closed out by saying that it seems that malfunctions in said arousal system could contribute to the experience of NDEs. But I think the data warrants further study into the matter.

I'm not suggesting that NDEs aren't real or that people are lying about them. Of course, it could just come down by what one takes the word "real" to mean. If by real, certain individuals mean an actual projection of consciousness outside of the body, then (as is per usual for me, I'm afraid) I'm going to remain skeptical.

[SPKrazy]

47. This Would Not Explain Really Seeing Things They Couldn't See

as you are describing hypnogogic phenomena, which are in a sense the same as hypnotic phenomena

there are instances of unexplained situations where someone who had an NDE was able to see things that they couldn't have seen within their body, and couldn't have dreamed accurately.

[neebob]

49. I think people who have NDEs

sense things while unconscious and have something resembling dreams that they then cobble together into stories that they and others who want to believe find compelling.

And then there's that doctor who put the running message machine near the ceiling, which says things like "the lollipops are blooming" and no one has ever reported back.

[SPKrazy]

51. The Most Remarkable Stories About NDE's

I've read was about those in children

and while some may think that NDE's are easily talked about, my experience with people who've had them is that they don't easily talk about them for fear of people thinking they are "crazy"

the children NDE book I read talked about how the stories were largely uncontaminated by adult intervention as the researchers tried to get the stories from the children as quickly as possible and using techniques that don't lead the witness so to speak.

I've heard about the running message machine, and it would seem that someone would see that, but they do seem to see and remember things that they shouldn't be able to remember or have seen.

[neebob]

55. I'd have to read this book

and in order to want to, I'd have to be open to the possibility of a spiritual entity capable of separating from the body, and I'm really not. I like the idea and want to believe it, but my brain keeps saying, "Nope - it's just little old amazing me, and I am you, and that's all there is in here."

Beliefs are powerful things. Researchers have them, too, and so do children, and I'm not just talking about religious beliefs.

[varkam]

43. I found the study that I was referring to...

It appeared in the journal Neurology in April, earlier this year, written by Nelson et al. They were able to interview 55 individuals with reported NDEs and 55 control subjects matched for age and gender. They were wanting to investigate if REM intrusion possibly played a role with NDEs - here are some of the results from the interviews:

"Just before falling asleep or just after awakening, have you ever seen things, objects, or people that others cannot see?" (Referring to hypnogogic / hypnopompic hallucinations)

NDEs: 42%
Control: 7%
p < 0.0001


"Just before falling asleep or just after awakening, have you ever heard sounds, music, or voices that other people cannot hear?" (Referring to auditory h/h hallucinations)

NDEs: 20%
Control: 4%
p < 0.0001

"Have you ever awakened and felt you were unable to move or felt paralyzed?" (Referring to sleep paralysis)

NDEs: 46%
Control: 13%
p < 0.0001

"Have you ever had sudden muscle weakness in your legs or knee buckling?" (Referring to cataplexy)

NDEs: 7%
Control: 0%
p = 0.12

[SPKrazy]

45. So Is The Argument That These Are Hypnotic Phenomena?

it's a possibility, pain is a producer of hypnotic phenomena as is trauma

the things that get me are the consistency of reports of "light", tunnels, etc. across cultures

also, the seeing things that they (NDE experiencers) couldn't see without being conscious and at a different location.

I don't know what NDE's are, they certainly could be hypnotic phenomena, but I'm remaining skeptical that this is all they are.

[varkam]

56. I think the argument is generally that...

NDEs may very well be the intrusion of REM-state sleep into our waking lives when danger is present - or at least the arousal system implicated in narcolepsy and REM intrusion may play a part. People who report NDEs often report a sense of being paralyzed - during REM, the body becomes paralyzed (so that we don't act out our dreams). That would account for that aspect of it.

They also explain the "light" sensation as well, due to different visual areas of that take the helm during REM. Sleep is a rather cross-cultural process, so that could possibly explain the cross-cultural component as well.

I don't know what NDEs are, either. Are they visions induced by a lack of oxygen to the brain? Are the faulty arousal systems? Are they projections of consciousness to some intermediary step between here and the afterlife? I don't know, but I do submit there is more evidence to suggest some of the former and less of the later. As with much that has to do with the here-after, many claims can only be taken on faith alone: which I, being the party-pooper skeptic that I am, have little of.

[neebob]

46. Why wouldn't it cause you to review your life

if it's all in your brain in the form of memories?

[SPKrazy]

50. That's A Good Question

oxygen deprivation can cause bizarre brain functions there is no doubt.

can make a person psychotic.

can certainly damage the brain.

life review is not necessarily something that happens all at once. Some people think that people with Alzheimer's experience life review over a long course of the illness, and even act out parts of their life review

[neebob]

57. Yes, and it's a subjective thing

People say their whole lives flashed before them, but I don't think they can know that, believing as I do that it's just whatever memories were logged, or that it's chronoligically correct. They're talking from memory, after all, and the memory is colored and supplemented by their beliefs.

Even if it's a lifelong atheist who says his entire life was presented to him by a being who introduced himself as Jesus, you're still dealing with beliefs.

[SPKrazy]

39. I Don't Know, I Always Thought They Brought Reagan Back

I think he was killed by the assassin's bullet, but was brought back from the dead to play out the fledgling fantasies of the soon to become Neocon group

[catbert836]

52. I fail to see

the relevance of this discussion in R/T.

[Boojatta]

59. News: some religions speak of resurrection. e.o.m.

[catbert836]

60. Then what's with the poll?

You could have put the resurrection of Jesus up there, but instead it talks about preachers boring people to death.

[Boojatta]

61. Do you really not see how the book of Acts chapter 20 verse 9 has

something to do with religion or theology?

The resurrection of Jesus is included in the second option: "Yes, but Acts twenty : nine is not necessarily a good reason for believing that it is possible."

Note: the poll talks about not just boring to death, but "miraculously bringing back to life." Maybe you stopped at verse 9? Read a few more verses past verse 9.

[neebob]

62. Do you think everyone got out their bibles and read the verse?

I might have, if I hadn't thought your first poll choice was a joke. And because I was confused by the poll, I didn't vote. I do, however, see the relevance to R/T because to me it's a question of the existence of souls.

[Boojatta]

63. You don't have to actually look in a Bible and read the verse.

If you recognize that it is a reference to a verse in the Bible and you believe that the Bible has something to do with religion or theology, then you have reason to suspect that this thread has something to do with religion or theology.

I suppose that I could have quoted the relevant verses, but perhaps you would have thought it was a joke and not a real quote. In any case, if you didn't like the first option in the poll, you could have chosen the second option.

[neebob]

64. I thought it was a joke because

it talked about preachers producing lethal boredom, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who thought that. What's wrong with a simple yes? Or "Yes, it's possible as described in Acts 20:9." That indicates you want to have a serious discussion about the possibility of bringing dead people back to life. Unless there's an actual Bible verse about boring people to death with sermons, your poll's confusing.

[Boojatta]

65. "What's wrong with a simple yes?"

I wanted to make the poll interesting. We are all familiar with the idea of a section of road or highway that is dangerous because it creates a sudden challenge. One can also have the opposite: a section of highway that is dangerous because the highway is perfectly straight and the scenery is boring.

Obviously it is unsafe to fall asleep while driving. It can also be unsafe to fall asleep indoors. For example, one might be perched high up above a hard floor.

The poll was designed to keep poll participants safe just in case any of them are perched up high.

[neebob]

66. Uh-huh, and it's still confusing. n/t

[manic expression]

58. Well

people can be pronounced medically "dead" and then revived, it's not that unheard of.

[Nikia]

68. Different types of possibilites

People can be revived who weren't fully dead. This includes people who are fully dead by medical criteria. Usually though they can't be "dead" for very long before they are permanently dead. It may be possible using technology or power usually thought of as supernaturual to resurrect the recent dead. The important thing is that not too much permanentt damage has occurred to most of the cells.
As far as the longer dead, whose bodies aren't preserved in some way to prevent too much damage, resurrection could be more difficult, but not necessarily if the supernaturual power that is being used was able to create life forms in the first place. I suppose that technology could achieve this too, but it is much more advanced than anything that we have now. I don't know how there wouldn't be severe brain damage as well.
Of course, some of a variety of religions and philosophies believe that we exist apart from our bodies as well and continue to exist after the death of our bodies. Under these conditions, resurrection would be easier as the body, including the brain, could be regrown without premanent loss of the self as likely would occurr from ressurecting a long dead body by simply regrowing the cells with the same DNA.

[davidinalameda]

69. possibly for whom?

there have been many cases where people have been brought back to life on the operating table, in the ER, etc