Talk:Death/Archive 1


 * Current discussion on Talk:Death

The original text was a bit confused between human and non-human death; I think that's a little clearer now, but I'm still not happy with the mixed nature of this article. Perhaps this is a good candidate for an EB merge--I'll go see what they have to say. --Lee Daniel Crocker

---

May I ask why personification of death is covered here (to it's credit, with a link to to be mentioned article) when there is also a personification of death page? 82.42.81.187

Just a note on the "failure" versus "termination" issue. Failure in the case used previously was used as scientists use it, not as a shortcoming, but the equivalent to such terms as "kidney failure", "system failure" (in computers), "memory failure" etc. It simply means that some part of the organism has failed to such a degree that life is no longer possible. Termination feels more 'loaded' a term to me for some reason. Just a minor quibble though. Rgamble


 * It seems to me that when we say "failure," we mean abnormal termination - your kidneys aren't "supposed" to fail (during your lifetime): on the other hand, you are "supposed" to die. - montr&eacute;alais

I removed this statement:
 * Humans are the only living beings able to imagen death.

Aside from the spelling, it's a very problematic claim: --Brion 11:57 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not falsifiable; since we have no way of asking other living beings if or what they imagine, we cannot verify that death is or is not among those things
 * 2) What does it mean to "imagine death"? To imagine a dead body? To imagine one's own dead body? To imagine the state of the outside after we are dead (and plan for it)? To imagine being in the state of death itself? (One might argue that we humans are unable to do this latter; hence we imagine all the afterlife fooferah.)

I've restructured the article, partly to try to separate the discussion of death in general from the discussion of death of humans. Here are some notes on specific passages added, deleted, or changed:


 * Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat and breathing, for example, but the development of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation posed a challenge: either the definition of death was incorrect, or techniques had been discovered that really allowed one to reverse death (because, in some cases, breathing and heartbeat can be restarted). Generally, the first option was chosen. (Today this definition of death is known as "clinical death".)

First, can anyone provide any specific historical context, in terms of people, places, dates, etc. for when this definition might have been relevant? The vagueness here worries me.

Second, the rest of this paragraph, or at least my contributions to it, are basically historical fiction; maybe they're in the right ballpark, but I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this conflict actually happened. I was trying to make the narrative coherent and compelling. Maybe this should be removed, or maybe someone who knows more about it can fix things.


 * In most places the more conservative definiton of death has been adopted (for example the Uniform Definition of Death Act in the United States).

It was unclear which definition of death was "more conservative", so I removed this statement.


 * It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness.

I don't know how many people presume this. However, I do know that, if people don't presume this, then the claim that stoppage of electrical activity is a good operational definition of death is a very odd one. So: if anyone disputes this statement, I challenge you to provide an alternative explanation.


 * It might also be worthwhile to entertain the possibility that death does not occur at a particular moment, but unfolds as a process over a period of time. Perhaps, in the end, it is not terribly meaningful to speak of "the exact moment of death".

There must be people to cite on this topic.

-- Ryguasu, Oct 22 2002


 * ""Biologically, death can occur to wholes, to parts of wholes, or to both. For example, it is possible for individual cells and even organs to die"", is there room here for a link to cell death as it's been recently awarded the Nobel prize?--dgd

-

This is incorrect.....


 * The irreversibility of death is connected with the second law of thermodynamics; in both cases, organized systems become less organized systems, and there is, in theory, no turning back. Nonetheless, many people do not seem convinced that death is always and necessarily irreversible; thus some have a literal belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, while others have high hopes for the eventual prospects of Cryonics.

The second law of thermodynamics does not argue that death is irreversible. The second law does not apply to an open system which a body is not. In principle, if you pump enough energy into a system, you can reverse any entropy loss.

One can argue that the second law makes death inevitable, but that is a totally different argument.

These two paragraphs were reversed, so that the "second" at the beginning of the now-first paragraph makes no sense:
 * What happens to humans after death?
 * Second, and more interesting to many, what, if anything, happens to humans when they die? Is there perhaps an afterlife? This is a long-standing and vexing question.
 * Physiological consequences of human death
 * For the human body, the physiological consequences of death include rigor mortis, dependent lividity, and decay.

It would actually make more sense to me to re-reverse the paragraphs, so that it goes from the known (body decay) to the unknown & open question (afterlife). FvdP 17:29 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

The "second" makes sense in terms of the following organizational structure, which is found, in this order, in the article:


 * 1) "Thinking about human death raises a number of questions."
 * 2) "First, how can we identify the exact moment at which death has occured?"
 * 3) "Second, and more interesting to many, what, if anything, happens to humans when they die?

Maybe this structure is not clear; I think it got less clear with the addition of the h2s.

Perhaps the structure should be:


 * 1) "Thinking about human death raises a number of questions."
 * 2) "First, how can we identify the exact moment at which death has occured?"
 * 3) "Second, and more interesting to many, what, if anything, happens to humans when they die?
 * 4) there are some mundane physical things that we understand
 * 5) there are some metaphysical things that we might not

This is a little problematic, though, because the first question implies that everything that follows is a sort of mystery, including the "mundane physical things that we understand." Ideas? -- Ryguasu

-- Actually after a bit more thought, I see a possible article structure as follows:
 * death as a biological phenomenon (non-controversial description):
 * (current first section)
 * what happens to bodies after death
 * controversial issues about death:
 * when is the exact moment of death ?
 * is biological death the actual end of a human's life ?

On the "second, and more interesting to many", I would just remove it. "second" comes way too far after the implicit "first". "more interesting to many" is not NPOV, even though it's probably true; no need to insist on that fact, readers know what interests them. FvdP 18:11 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It'd be good to throw in much more in the way of historical, religious, and cultural perspectives as well, though that's a tall order. -- Ryguasu

Why remove the stuff on Canada? The statistics are valid and informative, and there is similar information about Canada in other articles like murder and dentistry. If you feel the article shouldn't be biased towards one country, which it shouldn't, don't delete. Instead add information on other nations. - SimonP 15:10, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

-


 * Death as a state is the opposite of life

I regard this statement as rather metaphysical, and POV in that regard. It sort of suggests that death is an enemy of life, or not part of life, when I and those who think as I do regard it as the natural consequence of life and part of the life cycle, not alien to it. - Montr&eacute;alais

The meaning is not particularly metaphysical; the intent is to explain the difference between being dead and dying. Life is used as a handy word that means "the state of being alive". Metaphysics only enters when we try to generalize the words... that's later in the article. Andrew 05:37, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

-

What's with "oolitic death syndrome"? I'm inclined to believe it's a joke, since it links to Oxford University and the phrase occurs nowhere else on Wikipedia. But I'm hesitant to take it out, since it seems harmless. Andrew 05:37, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

What happens to humans after death?
I can't help but wonder if this is POV because there's no evidence for the existence of a spirit or soul. ... (treading carefully) ... would someone like to rephrase? Alex.tan 16:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need to tread carefully. I am also wondering if there are POV problems and in factual problems with the section.  Why don't we try editing it and discuss the results.  I will go first. Tom (hawstom) 22:08, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I reverted this addition. It needs to go in afterlife or near death experience. "Many who have had near-death experiences or who have been dead for at least a few seconds before have reported death as being similar to a peaceful, dreamless sleep." Tom 23:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)