Science has confirmed 'life after death'

[seeder]

Quote

 

BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY: Genes help scientists confirm 'LIFE' AFTER DEATH
SCIENTISTS have confirmed that there is 'life' after death in a groundbreaking study.

Experts have discovered, after a person dies, there are certain genes that actually kick into life and fight to bring the person back from death.

New research suggests that gene expression – when information in DNA is used for instructions to create molecules such as proteins – increases in certain genes as they attempt to essentially resuscitate the host.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/758635/LIFE-AFTER-DEATH-confirmed-gene-expression-afterlife

 

 

[Parsec]

I reckon these genes are not very successful, are they? 

 

Besides, this is far from "proving" tgat there's "life" after death. 

It's like the nails that keep growing for days after death. 

[spartan max2]

Very misleading sensationalist title.

But I guess that's journalism now in days. All about click bait

[seeder]

24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Very misleading sensationalist title.

But I guess that's journalism now in days. All about click bait

 

 

I CAN see....how its misleading I agree.....IF one thinks that a person/or spirit lives on.... but this bit is key

Quote

after a person dies, there are certain genes that actually kick into life and fight to bring the person back from death

 

[Parsec]

1 hour ago, seeder said:

 

 

I CAN see....how its misleading I agree.....IF one thinks that a person/or spirit lives on.... but this bit is key

 

And what happens when they fail to bring back the body from death? 

Do they die? 

If so, we just postponed the time when we can define a body "dead", nothing else. 

[seeder]

58 minutes ago, Parsec said:

And what happens when they fail to bring back the body from death? 

Do they die? 

If so, we just postponed the time when we can define a body "dead", nothing else. 

 

you might want to read the full article as to why knowing genes survive is useful....it WAS mentioned

And no we dont postpone the time of death, as we measure death by....

Quote

"death (death) (deth) the cessation of life; permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system...

brain d[eath]. irreversible brain damage as manifested by absolute unresponsiveness to all stimuli, absence of all spontaneous muscle activity, including respiration, shivering, etc., and an isoelectric electroencephalogram for 30 minutes, all in the absence of hypothermia or intoxication by central nervous system depressants. Called also irreversible coma and cerebral d[eath].

 

Furthermore.....bacteria in your gut doesnt die when a person does either......thats why the body swells and breaks down quicker

 

 

[Timothy]

Cells can be under a great deal of stress when someone is alive.

When the person dies, some cells can operate optimally, using their last available energies, without having to worry about the human being alive. 

[Duke Wellington]

When you are conceived those stem cells are growing inside your mother in a low oxygen environment. The foetus doesn't get an oxygen supply until the umbilical cord has grown. Only certain specialised tissues require an oxygen supply. The rest all die over the days-weeks following death from starvation and bacteria in the body breaking them down.

Brain cells not only need oxygen to live they need it to die as well. Its like a death switch is triggered in them and then they accumulate oxygen until they have enough to destroy themselves. CPR provides that oxygen to a dying brain killing it. Here in the UK we have two experimental research facilities at a couple of hospitals where they will revive you up to two hours after your brain receiving no oxygen without any brain damage. And they are soon to try to push that window to 8 hours. What they are doing is turning back off that death switch using chemicals and then reviving the patient.

It is quite literally all about breaking down existing lactic acid in the cells while giving them a nice big dose of sugar (the body scavenges oxygen from sugar molecules in the process that produces lactic acid) starting their circulation up and then hitting them with the oxygen. It is the levels of lactic acid which are the on/off switch for the suicide mechanisms.

[White Unicorn]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

When you are conceived those stem cells are growing inside your mother in a low oxygen environment. The foetus doesn't get an oxygen supply until the umbilical cord has grown. Only certain specialised tissues require an oxygen supply. The rest all die over the days-weeks following death from starvation and bacteria in the body breaking them down.

Brain cells not only need oxygen to live they need it to die as well. Its like a death switch is triggered in them and then they accumulate oxygen until they have enough to destroy themselves. CPR provides that oxygen to a dying brain killing it. Here in the UK we have two experimental research facilities at a couple of hospitals where they will revive you up to two hours after your brain receiving no oxygen without any brain damage. And they are soon to try to push that window to 8 hours. What they are doing is turning back off that death switch using chemicals and then reviving the patient.

It is quite literally all about breaking down existing lactic acid in the cells while giving them a nice big dose of sugar (the body scavenges oxygen from sugar molecules in the process that produces lactic acid) starting their circulation up and then hitting them with the oxygen. It is the levels of lactic acid which are the on/off switch for the suicide mechanisms.

Your input was more interesting than the old news article post! 

[White Unicorn]

On 1/25/2017 at 4:28 PM, seeder said:

 

 

I CAN see....how its misleading I agree.....IF one thinks that a person/or spirit lives on.... but this bit is key

 

I agree with you about the genetic cellular key that fights to bring one from the death process being very important.

I've seen several of my relatives clinically dead who were revived and after were in comas for several months. In all the cases, family was told they would have brain damage if they came out after the long length of oxygen deprivation to brain. When they came out of comas following heart failure events, they didn't have any brain damage or loss of body functions like after a stroke. I always thought it had something to do with the genetics of their cellular functions during a rest period being in a coma. NDE interest me in both the physical and alternate consciousness aspects. I think maybe the cell functions have a lot to do with why some people with NDE experience have spiritual experiences and others do not. It's in the genes!

[Astral Hillbilly]

Parsec, this article never mentioned anything about life after death that I saw. I would disagree with you anyway.

Just like you're wrong about fingernails continuing to grow after death. The skin starts receding from the fingertips giving the illusion of growing nails.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Poor things, fighting to stop the inevitable.

What i love the most are those headlines in articles  Click baits all around us.

[Parsec]

4 hours ago, Astral Hillbilly said:

Parsec, this article never mentioned anything about life after death that I saw. I would disagree with you anyway.

Just like you're wrong about fingernails continuing to grow after death. The skin starts receding from the fingertips giving the illusion of growing nails.

My bad for the inaccurate example I used. 

 

So you're saying that regardless what I write, you disagree with me? 

That's very kind, thank you! 

 

Well, maybe you didn't notice the URL name (http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/758635/LIFE-AFTER-DEATH-confirmed-gene-expression-afterlife) , nor the article's title "SHOCK DISCOVERY: Genes help scientists confirm 'LIFE' AFTER DEATH", but I did.

[Parsec]

On 25/1/2017 at 11:48 PM, seeder said:

 

you might want to read the full article as to why knowing genes survive is useful....it WAS mentioned

And no we dont postpone the time of death, as we measure death by....

 

Furthermore.....bacteria in your gut doesnt die when a person does either......thats why the body swells and breaks down quicker

 

 

I guess I have some communication issues in this thread.

 

Did I say the findings are useless? 

I simply argued about the misleading and click baiting title.

They don't "prove life after death", but rather that some biological processes not only keep going on, but actually kick in when we die. 

 

Thank you for explaining me how we arbitrarily decide when to draw a line between "alive" and "dead"! 

 

First, bacteria in our guts aren't technically part of our bodies, but rather symbiotic organisms having a mutualistic relationship with us. 

Do you know something about my bacteria that I don't? Well, I don't think they actually die when someone else does, but they definitely feel simpathy, I can tell you that. 

By the way, since we're a bit nitpicking, bacteria is the plural form for "bacterium", so in case they "don't die", not "doesn't". 

[seeder]

13 minutes ago, Parsec said:

 

First, bacteria in our guts aren't technically part of our bodies,

 

The bacteria are passed on from the mother...IN THE WOMB...... and have been passed down for millions of years

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/microbes-our-guts-have-been-us-millions-years

 

But what the heck do I know?
 

Quote

 

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones

You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones/

 

 

[Frank Merton]

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Poor things, fighting to stop the inevitable.

What i love the most are those headlines in articles  Click baits all around us.

Well I would not be so sure.  Aging and death are not unavoidable, and this is seen in the fact that each species, when kept in captivity, seems to have a normal maximum life span, correlated with its vulnerability to predation.

The theory here is that an animal that can't expect to live long puts all its efforts into reproduction and ignores longevity, while others that tend to live longer can spend more energy in longevity.  Hence possums naturally age and die within a year of sexual maturity (as they won't live longer than that anyway) while certain big turtles live for ages, as they will.

So there is some kind of clock that tells the system whether to let it go or start revving up the renewal mechanisms.  That every now and then researchers might find some aspect of either the clock or the renewal mechanisms is to be expected, and, for a topic as naturally interesting as this one, it is bound to get publicity.

That doesn't mean I don't expect to die, but it does mean I suspect at some point the causes and mechanisms will be worked out and people will indeed live indefinite lifetimes.

 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

7 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Well I would not be so sure.  Aging and death are not unavoidable, and this is seen in the fact that each species, when kept in captivity, seems to have a normal maximum life span, correlated with its vulnerability to predation.

The theory here is that an animal that can't expect to live long puts all its efforts into reproduction and ignores longevity, while others that tend to live longer can spend more energy in longevity.  Hence possums naturally age and die within a year of sexual maturity (as they won't live longer than that anyway) while certain big turtles live for ages, as they will.

So there is some kind of clock that tells the system whether to let it go or start revving up the renewal mechanisms.  That every now and then researchers might find some aspect of either the clock or the renewal mechanisms is to be expected, and, for a topic as naturally interesting as this one, it is bound to get publicity.

That doesn't mean I don't expect to die, but it does mean I suspect at some point the causes and mechanisms will be worked out and people will indeed live indefinite lifetimes.

 

Increased lifetime, yeah, with advances that will indeed come, maybe sooner than we think too. My belief is that death is part of life, maybe it does sound weird but that is just that to me.

Alto not organic life, i often think of stars in the Universe, they come to end to. Everything comes to end but also, that process of dying give opportunity for new life ( or call it stuff ) to arise. Thanks for explanation i didn't really understood essence of this. Personally ( yes, i love life of course  ) i would not have desire to mess with my longevity. What is bound to happen will happen, eventually. Who knows in the future, there is Robobrain, living brain put into robot in PC game Fallout 4 and there Bethesda ( who worked on making game ) made very nice Sci-F story in DLC called Far Harbor. When i was playing it i did think a lot about it.

Man, games these days.

[Timothy]

On 26/01/2017 at 8:28 AM, seeder said:

 

 

I CAN see....how its misleading I agree.....IF one thinks that a person/or spirit lives on.... but this bit is key

 

All of your new threads are misleading these days. Either exaggerated or false. 

[seeder]

3 hours ago, Timonthy said:

All of your new threads are misleading these days. Either exaggerated or false. 

 

Dont read them then.   You come to a site FULL of false and exaggerated claims...or didnt you know that fairies, bigfoot, aliens and ghosts dont exist?    Then choose to insult me

However the article explains what lives and how. As I said above the title may be misleading but ONLY to those who DONT KNOW there is no more of US after death.  Or perhaps you were one of those who didnt think of that beforehand, and so came to this page thinking that YES....after death we still magically live as ghosts or spirits or whatever?

Furthermore, the article was posted in the science section....... not the ghosts and spirits and hauntings sections.... so that implies there is science in the thread

 

[White Unicorn]

14 hours ago, seeder said:

 

The bacteria are passed on from the mother...IN THE WOMB...... and have been passed down for millions of years

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/microbes-our-guts-have-been-us-millions-years

 

But what the heck do I know?
 

 

When will people realize we have ecosystems in our body that's part of how the body works. Some of our own cells wouldn't function properly with out the bacterias. 

[GlitterRose]

There always seem to be sensational headlines, and then when you read what's actually there...it's not actually there. 

[Duke Wellington]

Scientists know if you cut a worm in half both regrow into two full new worms. If you cut a human arm off it doesnt grow a new body to go with it and neither does the original body regrow the missing arm. Why? Not only does it work in worms it works in many animal species including plants. But not humans.

The issue is that most cells inside the body cannot reverse back to into stem cells and then re-specialise into new tissue. If that process was widespread inside the body then not only would we grow new arms we would have a path to immortality. We could simply cut a hand off and we would de-age.

Guess what? There's been 3 bits of research into this process done on humans over the last 5 years (called transdifferentiation) where they successfully rejuvenated hearts, livers and kidney using it. It appears from the preliminary findings that what stops it occurring in humans under normal conditions are that we are too well fed.

It would appear an injured lizard goes hungry and that its the hunger which turns on its cells abilities to reverse back to stem cells and re-specialise into new tissue. And because we feed our hospital patients it doesn't happen in us. The process is on active in humans when our insulin levels are very low.

[Parsec]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Scientists know if you cut a worm in half both regrow into two full new worms. If you cut a human arm off it doesnt grow a new body to go with it and neither does the original body regrow the missing arm. Why? Not only does it work in worms it works in many animal species including plants. But not humans.

The issue is that most cells inside the body cannot reverse back to into stem cells and then re-specialise into new tissue. If that process was widespread inside the body then not only would we grow new arms we would have a path to immortality. We could simply cut a hand off and we would de-age.

Guess what? There's been 3 bits of research into this process done on humans over the last 5 years (called transdifferentiation) where they successfully rejuvenated hearts, livers and kidney using it. It appears from the preliminary findings that what stops it occurring in humans under normal conditions are that we are too well fed.

It would appear an injured lizard goes hungry and that its the hunger which turns on its cells abilities to reverse back to stem cells and re-specialise into new tissue. And because we feed our hospital patients it doesn't happen in us. The process is on active in humans when our insulin levels are very low.

I've read that the bits of research were 4 not 3, but they covered up the most promising, carried out by doc. Curt Connors.

Apparently he tried it on himself, but it didn't go really well

 

[Parsec]

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

It would appear an injured lizard goes hungry and that its the hunger which turns on its cells abilities to reverse back to stem cells and re-specialise into new tissue. And because we feed our hospital patients it doesn't happen in us. The process is on active in humans when our insulin levels are very low.

On a more serious note, maybe that's why fasting in some traditions is used as a healing way or a practice that can help the healing process? 

 

Anyway we're not the only ones. All the mammals and birds keep us company. 

Actually the species that can successfully regenerate whole parts of their bodies are really a few and if you consider complex organisms, even less. 

It's a very interesting research for sure, but (maybe I misinterpreted your post) you are making it look quite easy, while it's a little bit more complex than that.

Otherwise we should be able to observe in nature such episodes in other species since wild animals are not famous for living well fed lives. 

[Parsec]

19 hours ago, seeder said:

 

The bacteria are passed on from the mother...IN THE WOMB...... and have been passed down for millions of years

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/microbes-our-guts-have-been-us-millions-years

 

But what the heck do I know?
 

 

I don't get why you are trying so hard to be right. 

It's not that you wrote the article, you don't have to defend anything. 

Besides, there's nothing to defend, the research is pretty interesting, the article is ok and only it's title is sensationalistic click bait. 

 

Apart from that, what's your point? 

Even the two (very interesting, especially the first one) articles you mention juxtapose our cells and bodies against gut bacteria. 

They (gut bacteria) are with us, live with(in) us, evolve with us, but are not us. 

Again, they are symbiotic organisms having a mutualistic relationship with us.