What is death ?

**kx000** · 07-19-12, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

That's that thing, when your body ceases to function at all and rots.

That is the decomposition of our body, not death. Who knows what the other side holds. Ask faith.

**~~wlminex~~** · 07-19-12, 08:02 PM

A current link: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/482422...1-ac?gt1=43001

**Quantum Quack** · 07-19-12, 11:14 PM

To me the issue is somewhat semantic.
The word "death" is merely a word used to describe the cessation of biological function of an organism.
and well thats's all there is to the word...nothing more and nothing less.
I do realise that I could be considered as being trite but the poster OP is not really asking about death but more a definition of life which is a very differet proposition and definition.
Life: [wiki]

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

You will note the distinction that life is not merely an organism that has biological function.
Hence the notion of life after death can be seriously considered if animation is not strictly and solely dependant on biological function.
[life in this context meaning: that which is self animated or capable of self animation]
example: "Past Lifers, those that believe in past lives, will indicate they believe in "only one life but many deaths" [reincarnaion]

**wynn** · 07-20-12, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gremmie

Pick nits much?

I was merely giving my opinion.

Maybe you know something I don't?... If so, by all means, do tell.

You expressed certainty.

**lightgigantic** · 07-20-12, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

There is no evidence of any non-physical attributes.

Translation (after we get down to brass tacks about what his definition of "evidence" involves") - There is no reductionist tools to approach subjects that are classified outside of reductionist paradigms

**lightgigantic** · 07-20-12, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by hansda

Is it real or an illusion ?

In death , who really dies ?

Is death, end of life or beginning of life ?

I think we can understand our life better, if we can understand death well.

So, what is death ?

death pertains to that which is born - IOW if one has a poor fund of knowledge about issues beyond the body they don't have the skills to understand death or improve their life in any ultimately meaningful manner

**hansda** · 07-20-12, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by spidergoat

There is no evidence of that.

What kind of evidence you are looking for?

There are evidence of some people , who could remember some events of their previous birth.

**Quantum Quack** · 07-20-12, 07:45 AM

You could for instance consider a "living tree" that apparently dies and petrifies into a form of rock. At what point did the tree die?
when it lost al it's leaves?
when it lost all it's moisture?
When would you consider a tree dead?

**hansda** · 07-20-12, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

To me the issue is somewhat semantic.
The word "death" is merely a word used to describe the cessation of biological function of an organism.
and well thats's all there is to the word...nothing more and nothing less.

That's true. Death as we know is death of our body, when all the biological functions of our body ceases or stops.

I do realise that I could be considered as being trite but the poster OP is not really asking about death but more a definition of life which is a very differet proposition and definition.
Life: [wiki]

As we know that 'life' and 'death' are two opposite phenomena. When there is life, there is no death and when there is no life, there is death. So, if we can know death well, this knowledge will also help us to understand life better.

You will note the distinction that life is not merely an organism that has biological function.
Hence the notion of life after death can be seriously considered if animation is not strictly and solely dependant on biological function.
[life in this context meaning: that which is self animated or capable of self animation]
example: "Past Lifers, those that believe in past lives, will indicate they believe in "only one life but many deaths" [reincarnaion]

If you believe in "only one life but many deaths"; that means death is not happenning to life.

**hansda** · 07-20-12, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

You could for instance consider a "living tree" that apparently dies and petrifies into a form of rock. At what point did the tree die?
when it lost al it's leaves?
when it lost all it's moisture?
When would you consider a tree dead?

When the tree has no life, it cannot breathe and can be considered as dead.

**Quantum Quack** · 07-20-12, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by hansda

When the tree has no life, it cannot breathe and can be considered as dead.

so are you saying that the question of life is determined by whether an organism breathes or not?

As we know that 'life' and 'death' are two opposite phenomena. When there is life, there is no death and when there is no life, there is death. So, if we can know death well, this knowledge will also help us to understand life better.

and this is the point I wanted to mention. That the definiition of life is not merely the the absence of death. In other words philosophically it is not a simple death being opposite to life situation.
A vast majority of persons in the world [ Hindi, Buddhist, Christian, Muslem, for example] consider death to be only a transition from one state to another, or from one life to another meaning that death is not a final conclusion of life.
"The petrified tree is still the tree but in a different state" sort of summation.
<>
"Organic DNA is still able to be retrieved from human corpses 1000's of years old."
Is the DNA dead or is it alive?
<>
Is death as being final just a matter of perception or belief or is it a truth?

**Gremmie** · 07-20-12, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by wynn

You expressed certainty.

I most certainly did not!..As far as I know, we don't know if "souls" exist. We won't find out untill we are dead and gone. And that's the thought that I expressed.

You chose to attack me on that... I don't get it.

Of course, you will find a way to take a dig at me... That's fine, just don't expect a reply.

**KilljoyKlown** · 07-20-12, 08:21 AM

You can't have one without the other. Try and comprehend a world without death?

**Quantum Quack** · 07-20-12, 08:21 AM

If you believe in "only one life but many deaths"; that means death is not happenning to life.

quite the contrary.. death is a part of life and living but not the sum of life and living

**hansda** · 07-20-12, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

quite the contrary.. death is a part of life and living but not the sum of life and living

Death only happens to our body but not to our life which keeps our body alive.

**wynn** · 07-20-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gremmie

I most certainly did not!..As far as I know, we don't know if "souls" exist. We won't find out untill we are dead and gone.

How do you know that "we won't find out until we are dead and gone"?

Why couldn't we find out before we are "dead and gone"?

You chose to attack me on that... I don't get it.

Of course, you will find a way to take a dig at me... That's fine, just don't expect a reply.

I'm sorry you think that way. I was addressing the topic.

**wynn** · 07-20-12, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

quite the contrary.. death is a part of life and living but not the sum of life and living

Originally Posted by KilljoyKlown

You can't have one without the other. Try and comprehend a world without death?

That will depend on what you mean by "death" and "life."

William Shakespeare, for example, wrote in "Hamlet," "All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity." (Hamlet's mother says this to Hamlet.)
I think this is a fairly confused sentence.

**KilljoyKlown** · 07-20-12, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by wynn

That will depend on what you mean by "death" and "life."

William Shakespeare, for example, wrote in "Hamlet," "All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity." (Hamlet's mother says this to Hamlet.)
I think this is a fairly confused sentence.

Okay then try and comprehend life without a physical body? In the Stargate TV program the ancient ones learned how to ascend from their physical bodies. But they pretty much leave how they exist that way to your imagination. Also, they do specify that only minds of sufficient power are capable of ascending. So it's not for most of us "want-to-be's". In any event I see nothing wrong with having imagination, but have a great deal of trouble with claims that the soul really does exist and does continue after physical life has expired (died).

**wynn** · 07-20-12, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

death pertains to that which is born - IOW if one has a poor fund of knowledge about issues beyond the body they don't have the skills to understand death or improve their life in any ultimately meaningful manner

How can one learn to distinguish that which is born from that which is unborn?

**wynn** · 07-20-12, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by KilljoyKlown

Okay then try and comprehend life without a physical body?

Imagine: in this lifetime, you are in a male human body. In the next lifetime, you might be in a female human body. In the lifetime after that, in the body of a chimpanzee, then a tree, then a mouse. And so on.
The idea is that generally, living beings are always embodied in one way or another.