Originally posted by Sado22
please do. i'm curious.
ok, but I'm going to put your points into a different order for some narrative purposes.
Originally posted by Sado22
so is the fact that being shot in the head doesn't instantly kill you because there are so many parts of the brain that are actually independent of other parts. that's what lobotomy was all about. Phineas Gage was a prime example of that fact.
Life and Death
You raise a good point here, but fail to elaborate it. Whenever science or scientists talk about death in absolute terms, one HAS to question the nature of life itself. In this case, the bio-philosophical consideration is, is an organism alive, or are it's component pieces alive? So, before we even begin to determine what would constitute a sign of life after death, we need to know what life it is we are looking for. For instance, a leg cell in a corpse may still have some function, would you then attribute life to the corpse?
Localization of Function and the Mind
As you point out, the brain has many areas which have what is called localization of function. Gage is a good example, however, he had part of his brain removed, not his head cut from his neck. It is true, many places of the brain are not necessary to support the functions we as a complex organism need to remain "alive", however, a person without blood flow to their brain is not even remotely similar to a person who has undergone trauma to the brain.
Further, we are talking about death, not injury. Gage did not die from his wound. However, there were noticeable changes in his demeanor, which brings me to the next point. These localized functions comprise what we refer to as the human mind, or the self, or an individual. Changes associated with damage to these parts is not called a "death" and there is no specific "self" part of the brain that we can look to in order to confirm a person is dead (and that the rest of the cells that are alive are just like the previously mentioned leg cells).
Originally posted by Sado22
its a known fact that we don't die immediately after beheading.
We
here is the big problem. With no idea what this "we" you are talking about means on a specifically neurological level, it is impossible to determine when it is dead. For instance, a person in a coma is dead for all purposes of consciousness etc, yet the physical body is still able to live (the cells). So, if you mean that the cells in the brain or body of a just beheaded person may still be active, then ya, that is probably true. As far as human, personal, "we, you, I" type life, this is almost assuredly impossible, imho.
Impossible
The reason this is highly, HIGHLY, unlikely comes mainly from biology. The brain requires huge amounts of blood and oxygen to perform any function. Human consciousness requires 300ms AT LEAST of heavy neurological processing. While sub level processes (taking under 10ms) may occur, it would not reach the level of human consciousness, ie the "I", without a constant flow of blood. These processes would be exactly like the afore mentioned leg cell.
History
Another major item of importance is where this idea could have come from. In France during the reign of terror, there were hundreds of these types of rumors. beheaded heads were said to look out over crowds, to scowl or, , to flush with indigence. There is a history of these types of folk tales, the last mentioned showing a complete lack of reality in them, about how long a person lives after dying. My suspicion, given that you attribute this experiment to that time (iirc), it is a folk tale much like a blushing head.
Originally posted by Sado22
i'd be skeptical if someone told me that counting the number of times someone blinks requires methodology
oh boy, methodology.
ok, so, the big one is this: How does this happen? There is this scientist, who is so dedicated to science, that he chops off his own head?
ok, that seems remotely believable to you, well, what about his lab assistant then. "Hey, Jim, next week I'm going to cut my head off, watch it and count my blinks"
still makes sense? well: What did they do? he just chops off his head and the assistant is sitting there, blood pouring everywhere, grabs the head, looks at it, and as the scientist is dying, ignoring all the pain, panic, anxiety and confusion, uses his last effort to blink.
great, so you can actually believe all that?
here is the real methodology stuff.
1) not printed anywhere reliable. afaik, this should be the end of the issue
2) no replication is POSSIBLE
3) no construct validity - we don't know that his blinks were initiated by human volition rather than spontaneous muscle movement
4) only 1 subject - even if everything is true, there is no ability to generalize from a single case to a population.
5) no rehearsal. Even if nothing else were problematic, we can't say that the dead scientist knew how to blink with his head cut off. Many psychological tests require practice before a participant is able to properly follow the instructions. I assume dying would be novel enough to cause some confusion.
anything else?
