I saw this in a locked topic:
Who is right?
Technically, if one could isolate the brain and provide it with oxygen and nourishment (e.g. glucuse), one would be considered 'alive'.
One has to look at the clinical definition of death. Clearly, without oxygen, the brain dies.
On the other hand, if there is no neurological activity, then one is considered 'brain dead', but the other organs could be kept alive 'artificially' for some time. One could oxygenate the brain, but if the brain cells have ceaesed to function, and are decaying, then the brain is dead, and one is dead.
i think that it is not 100% deaths because of lack of oxygen to the head, i mean just like he said strap yourself with 500 kilos of dynamite and your still breathing the second it goes off you die because your brain got blown into bits not because oxygen didnt get to your brain, plus he is again right, humans cannot breath in pure oxygen because then they die, that just disproves his theory
Well, I suppose if you try really hard you can find ways of disassembling the brain such that it stops living even though there's no lack of oxygen...
but really, isn't that stretching it a bit?
And that's why some threads have been locked, and should stay that way.
Separate names with a comma.