Why is reanimating a corpse impossible? All the material is there.

>>8502503
Who said it wasn't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_T8OuYIfhM

>>8502503
consciousness exist in the abstract. Science cannot explain why a particular arrangement of particulars creates life but it does.

>>8502503
brain deteriorates after death, loses it's chemical requirements to sustain life.

Although if you can freeze it, maybe

DUDE
ENTROPY
LMAO

>>8502519
So putting the chemicals back in brings it back to life, in theory?

Don't do it, Elric

>>8502519
Uh thats not why lol. If it were as simple as fixing broken parts brain transplants wouldnt fail for braindead people.

>>8502512
I get that it's unexplained but it doesn't make sense to me from a theoretical perspective. It should be as simple as finding out what a life form is composed of and composing it. The only difference between a corpse and a living person is life, the physical matter is all the same. I don't get it. Trust me when I write that I'm not fishing for some theological explanation. Quite the contrary, I want a scientific one. Why is my aforementioned line of logic wrong?

>>8502530
Kek

>>8502542
Once something dies, all of its cells go to shit. All cellular processes go to shit. A corpse can not regain function entirely, although I could see it being possible for a section of dead tissue to be reanimated.

>>8502525
You forgot your shitty picure you dumb numberphile poster

>>8502503
Multi-cellular Eukaryotic organisms generally are complex and once death in which all organs fail, tissue necrotize, proteins denature, and cells die. the critical damage thereof is impossible to come back from. That being said, I do believe if cryogenic technology were advanced enough to preserve the organism's cells and materials death could be avoided for a time. You have to remember that programmed cell death is also very real. Entropy destroys us all in time.

>>8502767
How could we beat programmed cell death? Could we theoretically use crispr to override the programming?

>>8502542
Yes, your logic is wrong because it's not simply the materials themselves but their ability to communicate and interact with each other in complex ways. Think of it like a computer with no battery and power source, it's parts are all there, but without electricity to animate it it is dead.

These are the characteristics of living things:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things move.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond and may adapt to their environment.

I realize that some of them technically are still present shortly post mortem.

>>8502503
It depends on how you define a dead person. If you mean a heart stops, well, we've already brought back people who's hearts have stopped. If you mean somebody who is long gone, cell deterioration and decomposition are typically a problem.

>>8502771
Not a bad question. I think it would be tremendously complex. Maybe many years into the future, we will be capable of such feats. Medical science, molecular biology, and nano technology is certainly advancing.

>>8502777

death is defined. "the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue or cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism."

>>8502785
This. Someone who's had cardiac arrest isnt dead

>>8502771
You do realise that programmed cell death is there to avoid creation of cancer cells

>>8502503
>why is starting a computer without following it's boot procedure impossible? all the material is there. what is missing.
all the shit in the flash memory

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/cancer-girl-14-is-cryogenically-frozen-after-telling-judge-she-w/

>>8502503
We don't know which part of the brain holds conscioussness and how does it work.

>>8502503
Because you need the fleshbox to chemically work..

>>8502829
Interesting link thank you.

."Thomas K. Donaldson, a mathematician, had ideas about death that were even stranger than cryonics. He believed that even though people were "dead," their brains continued to exist and have functionality and we just don't have the technology to access it yet. For his sake, let's hope that's true; he died in 2006 and is assumed to have been cryonically preserved. He seemed to be pretty confident that he would be back someday; in a 1982 interview, when asked for a piece of wisdom to pass on to cryonicists, he said, "I'm sure that any profound piece of wisdom I might have would seem really rather stupid in 300 years. So I think it would be better for me to say nothing, so I don't feel ashamed of myself in 300 years."

I'm not sure if the technology is advanced enough, because of cell rupturing when they are finally wake up so to speak. And that's an if. There not enough energy and biological activity for them to be cryogenically dreaming. Perhaps there's some mysterious, meta brain function. I personally find that unnaturally frightening, but so is death I suppose, minus the unnatural.

>>8502855
Sorry about the typos, I've got to get to school.

>>8502503
>not being alive since the beginning of time
Fucking plebs.

>>8502815
Do jellyfish get cancer?

>>8502733
that

>>8503315
jellyfish aren't as complex organisms as mammals are