Be that as it may, I'd like to stay with the question, "what happens when you die?" and look at it on a more physical level. In order to answer this question more clearly, we would have to know what it is to die, or how to define death. We all know that when you die, your body stops moving and eventually begins to decompose and rot; anyone can see that with their own eyes. In scientific terms, Death is the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Obviously, without biological functions that sustain the living organism, the organism is no longer alive. (Let me stress that the term "dead" is synonymous with the phrase "no longer alive".) Oddly enough this definition also covers animals, does it not? So what conditions have to be met in order for you to be dead? You can be deemed legally dead when just the brain dies and the rest of your body still functions. If one could "become" a ghost, could it be done when only the brain is dead? or does your mind have to wait for the rest of you to die, even though most believe that the functions of the rest of the body are unnecessary for the existence of a ghost to be possible. If a ghost cannot be "born" from a brain-dead human body and it shouldn't need a body to function, then why not? Modern medicine can't bring a brain back to life. You're basically doomed to die when the machines stop keeping your body alive for you. So, this raises the question, if you're only brain dead, (a state of being in which you are considered legally dead) and your mind is completely dead (the only part of your being that is required to supposedly "be" a ghost, considering no ghost is claimed to have a physical body), can you become a ghost with the only part of you that goes with you after you die (if of course you believe in an immortal soul)? Is the occurrence of brain death the point in which ghost life begins?
One of the reasons I want to discuss what happens to you when you die is because it's hard to define and determine death in a general sense. This is mainly because it's difficult to define "life", death's contrast. Without life, you can't have death. So what other definitions of death are there and which one or several of those are necessary to "make" a ghost? At one time, death was considered when the heart stops, but now medical science can keep that part of the body alive while other pieces of you die. If you're in a hospital bed lying there, completely brain dead with no chance of ever coming back, do you become a ghost right then, or does the part of you that supposedly leaves your body as a ghost hibernate or lays dormant until the rest of you dies? If it happens when just your brain is dead, then how long after said death occurs? Same question if you have to wait until one hundred percent of total body function ceases? Is there a waiting period or an immediate reaction upon a certain definition of death? Are you forced out like an air pocket trapped under water? Do you have to ease your way out like giving birth to a baby? Are you pulled from your body by an invisible force or shot out like an arrow?
If you are considered brain dead, suspension of consciousness (the electrical activity in your brain) must be permanent. Some people believe that only some parts of the brain need to cease functioning in order for you to be considered brain dead and maintain only the neo-cortex is necessary for consciousness. If so, Can you become a ghost only after the neo-cortex dies out?
If one has to wait until every part of their body loses all function to become a ghost, Does the body change somehow when the ghost part of them is extracted? If not everybody becomes a ghost, is it extracted in a different manner when the ghost portion becomes something else or "goes" elsewhere? After death, the body undergoes several changes; most notably Rigor morrtis and Pallor mortis. Are these natural procedures that the body undergoes after death, or are they necessary to produce a ghost independently of the process of death. We know that every person's body goes through these stages, so if not everyone becomes a ghost, then these things that happen post-mortem aren't likely related.
Science can tell you what definitely happens in a biological sense to your body when you die. After that, countless cultures around the world have completely different beliefs. No accounts of ghosts are all that consistent and can even change within the same culture over time. Why is that? Are there billions of people mistaken as to what they saw or heard? Are certain ghosts native to certain regions? Is one culture right and everybody else is wrong? Do people in different regions die differently? Are there an unspeakable amount of procedures and ways to create a ghost? Or do none of these things matter because there are no such things as ghosts. If ghosts do exist, then every piece of data and every variable is important. Keep in mind anecdotal evidence isn't credible. You can tell any kinds of stories about experiences you want, but without conclusive data (or in this case, any real data at all), there is no proof behind your claims that what you observed was in fact a ghost. There aren't even any constants to the idea of ghosts. All ghosts might be different in some ways, like how individuals are different, but they would still have to have testable similarities, considering they're all ghosts. Just like no two snowflakes are alike, they're all still made of snow, and science can prove the existence of snow.
The subject of ghosts and whether or not they exist still isn't finished as far as I'm concerned, so Part 3 of this discussion is only moments away! Be sure to keep an open mind and try not to draw any conclusions just yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment