

How dead is dead? - brianl
http://www.economist.com/node/21526321

======
ppod
"participants were also asked to rate how religious they were."

If this was the exact wording of the question, I think they should have
instead asked people to rate to what extent they believe in a soul. It's not
very fashionable (especially in NY) to describe oneself as 'religious', but a
great many people who will tell you 'I'm not religious' still believe in
souls, heaven, angels, etc.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _It's not very fashionable (especially in NY) to describe oneself as
> 'religious'_

Or perhaps the people aren't very religious. I think the ambiguity your point
raises is valid but that your thinking appears to be invalid. People aren't
religious because they don't take part in religious activity (a religion or
similar) and not because of their beliefs.

Researchers that don't define key words for participants is a little shocking
for me.

------
Jach
Well, the clear thing at least is that people seem to understand the
difference between medically dead and information-theoretical dead, and
possibly soul-dead. I'm wondering what the results would be if they cremated
the medically dead guy instead of buried him. At the very least even religious
people seem to think what a person is rests in a brain. Now on to the next set
of steps to try and get people to sign up for cryonics...

~~~
nyellin
This American Life produced an incredibly insightful episode on early cryonic
institutions

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/354/m...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/354/mistakes-were-made/)

I don't have a medical background, but as far as I know, the medical advances
of three decades haven't brought us closer to safely preserving human bodies.

~~~
mmaro
<http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth2>

(Also, just in case any young people on HN think they have no chance of dying,
add up a decade of 'Death probability' on
<http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html> )

~~~
Locke1689
I don't understand.
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=life+expectancy+at+21> says that my life
expectancy is 76.62 years and my probability of dying is 0.001329. That's a
really low probability of dying already and I haven't even weighted in
statistics like being healthy, high income, and taking the bus instead of car
or bike. I can't believe that my probability of dying before I'm thirty is any
higher than 0.1%.

~~~
AngryParsley
0.001329 is 0.13%, and that's just for the next year of your life. On Wolfram
Alpha, look under survival probability and you'll see that your chance of
dying before age 30 is 0.93%.

~~~
Locke1689
I'm well aware that 0.13% is for the next year. The survival probability on
Wolfram Alpha, however, doesn't take more specific statistics into account.
The only things the data have are race, age, and sex. My supposition is if it
took more interesting things into account (socioeconomic class, general
health, commute patterns, drug use, etc) my actual probability of death before
age 30 is no more than 0.1%. I'm not worried.

~~~
mmaro
There's no way your probability is close to 0.1%.

Exhibit A:
[http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Death_by_Age_2007-a.pd...](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Death_by_Age_2007-a.pdf)

Exhibit B: life insurance companies collect a lot of data from you, and no
company will price a 21 year old anywhere near 0.1%.

~~~
Locke1689
The CDC data just shows causes of death. The first most common is
"Unintentional injury," which I assume covers things like car accidents and
risky sports. Neither affect me because I don't drive (take the bus) and don't
participate in dangerous sports.

I shouldn't have to address homicide. I'm from the Baltimore area -- I know
exactly who that age group is weighted by and I'm not concerned about dying by
homicide.

I'm not going to commit suicide.

Malignant neoplasm (cancer) is unlikely. I'm low on risk factors and don't
have a high genetic propensity. I'm also in the fortunate position of having a
better knowledge of my medical risk factors than most people because I'm from
a family of doctors.

Your second example isn't even a real example. You have no data, you're just
making a claim. As far as life insurance goes, I doubt they collect extremely
accurate statistical data. It's not in their best interests to lower their
premiums so I would expect any life insurance policy to be heavily weighted in
their favor.

------
Killah911
Perhaps it's not a case of people really believing that dead people have more
cognitive abilities than the "living". This again is one of those tricky
morality/judgement issues which is far beyond the scope of this simple survey.
Perhaps the cognition rating was more in a social context. Death, is a very
critical part of live. It's almost a rite of passage in some ways. After
death, you leave behind your legacy. If you're a leader, a successor might
pick up the torch and rally the troops in your memory, so in that sense, a
dead person's memory/personality may be more "alive" than one in a persistent
vegetative state. Case and point, Ariel Sharon. (I mean no offense to him) Had
he passed on, it may even have energized his party/cause etc. Instead, being
in a coma has actually been worse for him. It's hard to inspire others in the
"memory of" when that person is still breathing. Even worse, when someone
comes around, their cause, work etc may no longer be relevant if it's after a
very prolonged period of time. I think the article oversimplifies the issue.
Chalking it up to "religious" and trying to correlate that with people
thoughts seem rather random. Perhaps "religious" people may be thinking more
from a societal context? Nevertheless, if this is a serious effort, I hope
they have follow up articles with more data that really helps identify this.
It's not just an interesting topic in that it defines death, but it reveals
more about the inner workings of the more complex parts of our cognitive
system and how we develop our "values" (no pun intended).

------
meric
Someone in the comments made a good point:

People saw the vegetative David as "asleep" so, does not have the ability
perform any of those mental tasks, while religious people see the soul of dead
David still there, and "agree" the dead David could still perform those mental
tasks.

~~~
lloeki
Another similar take: one is trapped, the other is gone.

------
tententwenty
"In another, he died. In the third, his entire brain was destroyed except for
one part that kept him breathing."

Maybe the choice of words used is significant. On popular tv there are now
shows featuring people who had "technically" died but were later brought back
from the dead. When something is destroyed, however, it is gone.

The choice given to interviewees reminds me, for some reason, of the childhood
riddle, 'Would you rather be nearly drowned or nearly saved?'

------
epo
To echo one of the reader comments, perhaps this says more about the
capabilities of the living than about those of the dead.

------
spottiness
"That those who do not are inclined to do so unless heavily prompted not to is
curious indeed."

What a confusing way of ending an article. It would translate into Ruby to
something like this:

def ascribe_mental_acuity_to_the_dead?

    
    
      true
    
      unless believe_in_after_life
    
        false if heavily_prompted_not_to_believe_in_after_life
    
      end
    

end

------
folkster
I now understand why people choose Euthanasia It makes them "less dead"
actually

------
forgotAgain
I would think the subject of "what is life" is too subjective to chart onto a
simple line graph.

------
perfunctory
They should have added an option where David died while being in vegetative
state.

------
Tichy
Must be the fault of Twilight. It is practically a given these days that dead
people continue to roam the world as vampires, and in fact have more fun than
living people.

