"For all that science has learned about the workings of life, death remains among the most intractable of mysteries…
"New research into the dying brain suggests the line between life and death may be less distinct than previously thought…
“Death may be far more alive than we ever thought possible…”
Wishful thinking. This is not science. Science requires testable hypotheses and objective measures.
We should not invest in this area. I’m not saying there aren’t truths in a sense, rather, it is beyond the limits of our capacity to extract the knowledge. The scientific method does not apply here, so how do we propose to obtain these truths?
For the truly inquisitive: fear not, for you too will experience death and as much as everyone else will, which is to say, that when death comes you will not be there to experience it.
There is plenty of useful data to be gathered from a dying brain.
Knowing what parts of the brain shutdown first seems like it would be useful for easing pain or discomfort. And since dying can be an extended process for the elderly or terminally ill, being able to more accurately predict when a person will die can potentially ease the suffering of loved ones.
As someone who stayed with a loved one for 14 hours straight while she passed, it would have been nice if someone had been able to tell me if she had 2 or 12 hours left. I still would have stayed the whole time, of course, but knowing she had less or more time might have changed what a wanted to say and would have put my mind at ease about her suffering.
Understanding the process of dying is good research. You’re right that science can’t reach beyond death and shouldn’t try to, but gathering data on the process does have applications.
It wasn’t long ago that graves were built with ropes and bells. It took time to understand that there’s some relationship between electrical activity in the brain and death. Our understanding of death as a physical reality is young. The process of dying has much left to offer.
However, it’s the life after death and the intersection with spiritualism that I contest as unscientific. The article admits there’s a significant overlap with those who conflate science with convictions. It’s tempting to begin with a preconceived notion of the afterlife for the soul and then to try to find it in the available data. Indeed, I believe it mentions the camp focused on the physical study of death is the minority.
Perhaps a compromise proceeds with caution.
Absolutely. Science cannot answer philosophical or existential questions.
When I read these articles, even when they are a pleasure to read such as this one, I have reservations. It’s important that we remember the purpose and methodology of science. We must ask ourselves what we wish to achieve. To apply science to this subject is inappropriate.
By all means let’s study the brain, but we should not attempt to study after death experience IMHO.
How is this any different form studying the distant stars or the origin of the universe? Science should try to understand everything, because we don’t know what we don’t know.
I’m not trying to criticize OP
But I have seen this posted over and over again, and I really don’t understand why it is capturing people’s attention.
Another commenter here pointed out that it’s mystical pseudoscience, and it has no relevancy to anything. (Ed: Unless you want to fund future research and how to create undead soldiers /s)
There’s really no mystery to what happens when a human dies or any other creature for that matter, various electrical impulses continue in various ways, then the creature dies.
But then wouldn’t life also be far more dead than we ever thought possible? Basically we’re living in The Sixth Sense, that’s my takeaway.
