[ExI] What should survive and why?

[Lee Corbin]

Eugen writes

> Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length
> of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious
> processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum
> of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time.
> 
> > First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death occurs,
> 
> Death has no meaning at all, especially if you haven't agreed where to
> draw that arbitrary, rapidly receding line in the sand.

Yet below you say "Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death.
It's a classic."  So which is it?

Lee

> Critical care medicine routinely keeps pushing the limits back,
> and by golly, we have some good chances to see that boundary
> pushed back indefinitely at least for organ transplant
> purposes. And the brain is just an organ.
> 
>> not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this point too.) 
>> Definition of death should
>> follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process (its 
>> activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity is death 
>> even though I realize this is not immediately obvious.
> 
> Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. It's a classic.
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org