3 ms·
> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be. It loses its identity as the thing it was. How does that fit
by falcor84 2y ago
> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be. It loses its identity as the thing it was.
How does that fit with clinical death followed by resuscitation in humans? At what point in time does a human cease to exist?
- Detrytus 2y agoWell, if they were able to successfully resuscitate you that means that you weren't truly dead.
- neom 2y agoLazarus syndrome is an interesting read.
- falcor84 2y agoThe Jaime Reyes collection of stories? What did you take away from it?
- falcor84 2y agoBut doesn't that mean that this allegedly philosophical/metaphysical question is predicated on technological advancement? I.e. by inventing a more advanced resuscitation method, people who have ceased to exist would suddenly exist again?
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoNo, why would it? Why do you assume they've ceased to exist? Resuscitation is not recreation or re-instantiation. A person prior to resuscitation isn't dead. Rather, some function has ceased (cardiac arrest, for instance) which can, if his state persists, result in death because it will eventually cause all functions to cease and allow decay to begin. What you have in mind is not so much a philosophical problem per se, but a medical or even a biological problem, i.e., at which point is resuscitation no longer possible even in principle? When is there no longer the potential to resuscitate? That would be the point at which the existence of something has ended.