Death.. Then what?

[ARTgames]

I thoght this might be intresting.

Controlled clinical death

Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18?C (+64?F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure. At such low temperatures the clinically dead state can be sustained without serious brain injury for up to one hour. Longer durations are possible at lower temperatures, but the usefulness of longer procedures has not been established yet.

Controlled clinical death has also been proposed as a treatment for exsanguinating trauma to create time for surgical repair.

Could this be considered comming back from death? Or more importantly does this mean your a zombie?

[Jake]

I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.

Well, when I was reading the wiki page for String Theory, I came across this.

"In particular, string theory is the first candidate for the theory of everything (TOE), a way to describe the known fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system."

Does that not qualify?

I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."

With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.

I understand where you're coming from a little better now. I think the key difference between our view points is that you have divided spirituality and science. I believe that if some kind of spiritual force does exist, it's unified with science, which is why I regard Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.

You are correct in that the debate between ID and multiple universes and statistical probability, is kind of moot, simply because they don't contradict each other. At the same time, depending on how you look at it, each theories own plausibility effects the others plausibility. For example, if there was an all powerful God, one might be less likely to believe in multiple universes because it isn't necessary to explain how life was created. I mean, one of the only reasons we believe there could be multiple universes out there right now is because it's a possible explanation for how are universe is so fine tuned to allow life to exist. The existence of God lowers the plausibility that this is true because it takes away the need to find another reason for life to exist. Am I making any sense at all?

[Forum]

I think after death you go to heaven or hell

[HamsterPants]

I think after death you go to heaven or hell

Why did you use a default Windows 7 wallpaper for your avatar?

That just seems really random, and lazy.

[ARTgames]

I think after death you go to heaven or hell

Why did you use a default Windows 7 wallpaper for your avatar?

That just seems really random, and lazy.

I guess im also random and lazy. : (

[Lingus]

I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.

Well, when I was reading the wiki page for String Theory, I came across this.

"In particular, string theory is the first candidate for the theory of everything (TOE), a way to describe the known fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system."

Does that not qualify?

Yes, that would qualify. I wasn't thinking about that.

I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."

With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.

I understand where you're coming from a little better now. I think the key difference between our view points is that you have divided spirituality and science. I believe that if some kind of spiritual force does exist, it's unified with science, which is why I regard Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.

You are correct in that the debate between ID and multiple universes and statistical probability, is kind of moot, simply because they don't contradict each other. At the same time, depending on how you look at it, each theories own plausibility effects the others plausibility. For example, if there was an all powerful God, one might be less likely to believe in multiple universes because it isn't necessary to explain how life was created. I mean, one of the only reasons we believe there could be multiple universes out there right now is because it's a possible explanation for how are universe is so fine tuned to allow life to exist. The existence of God lowers the plausibility that this is true because it takes away the need to find another reason for life to exist. Am I making any sense at all?

I guess I should explain a bit more. I am only referring to the possibility of proof of these things. The method of gaining knowledge on either realm (the physical and the spiritual). This is where I find they are mutually exclusive. I agree with you though that they are both probably fully intertwined. If there is an intelligent spiritual force behind the creation of the physical world, it definitely is related. There would be an inherent reason why the physical world is the way it is. But there would be no "physical" way for us to have any evidence of that. That's really my point. You can use all of the physical evidence you want and it will tell you nothing of the spiritual world. Not that they aren't somehow and/or fully related to each other.

I thoght this might be intresting.

Controlled clinical death

Certain surgeries for cerebral aneurysms or aortic arch defects require that blood circulation be stopped while repairs are performed. This deliberate temporary induction of clinical death is called circulatory arrest. It is typically performed by lowering body temperature to +18?C (+64?F), stopping the heart, stopping the brain with drugs to conserve energy, turning off the heart lung machine, and draining blood to eliminate all blood pressure. At such low temperatures the clinically dead state can be sustained without serious brain injury for up to one hour. Longer durations are possible at lower temperatures, but the usefulness of longer procedures has not been established yet.

Controlled clinical death has also been proposed as a treatment for exsanguinating trauma to create time for surgical repair.

Could this be considered comming back from death? Or more importantly does this mean your a zombie?

I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...

[HamsterPants]

I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...

I don't think so.
It just doesn't seem to have enough evidence backing it, clinically, it is considered death, but I don't think it was 100% death.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot bring somebody back to life if they are dead for a certain period of time(not saying I don't believe zombis exist), which leads me to believe that it is simply that the person wasn't really dead, maybe half-dead, if there is such a thing.

[Lingus]

I've heard of this. It's definitely very interesting. And yes, to answer your question, it is definitely coming back from death. (Though I'm guessing a bit different than the definition of a zombie.) Though still, this doesn't prove anything about near death experiences. Not that you said it did...

I don't think so.
It just doesn't seem to have enough evidence backing it, clinically, it is considered death, but I don't think it was 100% death.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot bring somebody back to life if they are dead for a certain period of time(not saying I don't believe zombis exist), which leads me to believe that it is simply that the person wasn't really dead, maybe half-dead, if there is such a thing.

Nope. They are dead. The problem with death and coming back to life is that if your brain isn't getting enough oxygen (as will happen when your heart stops) then it starts to decay quickly. By lower the body temperature as well as some other techniques, they have found a way to preserve the brain for a longer period of time than usual. This buys them enough time to do whatever needs to be done in order to save the person and then bring their temp back up and start up their heart. Obviously there would still be some risk of brain damage, and probably the possibility of not coming back alive, but this would be used as a last resort. Only if they would have died if they did nothing. But yes, the heart is stopped and there is no detectable brain activity. There is no other definition for death. You can't be more dead than that.

[ARTgames]

Then what do these people say how there dead time was?

[Lingus]

Are you talking about when someone dies in a hospital and they have to announce the time of death? I imagine they wouldn't do that until they have attempt to revive the person and they can't. In that case, I'm not sure. They would either use the current time, or the time when they stopped their heart.

[ARTgames]

Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?

[Jake]

Oops. I meant: How did the people they brought back say how there time being dead was like?

Read up on NDE's and you can get a good idea... Despite the fact that brain waves have stopped, there are recorded cases of people having very lucid experiences.

This NDE in particular is very interesting. The woman is made clinically dead for a surgery, and reports her experience.

[Lingus]

Well, the problem I have with NDEs is there is no way to know when they experienced it. They may be having the experience while they are completely alive and simply unconcious. Then, after the experience they die and they experience nothing. When they are revived and are told they had died, they would assume the experience they remembered was when they were dead.

Obviously, I recognize there is some weird and seemingly unexplainable phenomena such as the person being dead yet being able to recall what people around them were saying. Though I still feel there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those kinds of things.

[Jake]

Obviously, I recognize there is some weird and seemingly unexplainable phenomena such as the person being dead yet being able to recall what people around them were saying. Though I still feel there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for those kinds of things.

I agree here. Simply because it's unexplainable at this point in time does not mean there is no explanation for it. At the same time, there are some things that really can't be explained... For example, people being operated on have watched their operation in progress, and knew what the doctors were wearing, how they looked, etc. I can't imagine how that would be possible, unless the person was lying or had some kind of lucid dream, combined with senses that were still intact, such as their hearing, in order to form some kind of accurate mental image of what was going on.

[Lingus]

combined with senses that were still intact, such as their hearing, in order to form some kind of accurate mental image of what was going on.

This is what I believe. I think the subconcious mind picks up on a whole crap load of information that we don't conciously think about. The person may have caught a glimpse of the doctor before hand to know what they were wearing, they "heard" the doctor talking in the operating room and their mind filled in the rest of the info needed.