I found this to be fascinating -- for those who may not have read the fine article, the movement isn't autonomic, it's due to the decomposition process. But studying what happens to a corpse between death and discovery is quite challenging, and I'm impressed that they devised a suitable experiment and were able to carry it out.
A MR tech colleague was scanning a cadaver one night after hours for someone’s research project (possibly on ultra short TE imaging). She finished a scan then reviewed it. They were moving and the images suffered from motion artifact. Presumably defrosting or something.
Someone that runs a funeral home wouldn't have an issue. They are the ones that cut up a body, that is donated to science, and ship parts around to buyers. Most institutions only want part of a body for testing and studying so a whole body is worth less than a cut up body.
Now does the post-mortal movement still occur in body parts versus the whole body?
Too bad Dick reported to the FBI that Lem was a faceless composite communist committee out to get him and brainwash the youth of America and undermine American SF with "crude, insulting and downright ignorant attacks", while Lem asymmetrically thought all science fiction writers were charlatans except for Philip K Dick.
>In 1973, Lem became an honorary member of the Science Fiction Writers of America, a gesture of ‘international goodwill’ on the association’s part. However, in 1976, 70 percent of the SFWA’s voted in favour of a resolution to revoke Lem’s membership. A very quick dismissal for such a prestigious author, but the reasons for his quick ejection from the organisation are clear – he didn’t seem to regard his honorary membership as any sort of honour. He considered American science fiction ‘ill thought out, poorly written, and interested more in adventure that ideas or new literary forms’ and ‘bad writing tacked together with wooden dialogue’, and these are just a few examples of Lem’s deprecatory attitude towards the US branch of his genre.
>Lem, however, considered one science fiction author as exempt from his scathing criticisms – his denouncer, Philip K. Dick. The title of an essay Lem published about Dick is evidence enough of this high regard: A Visionary Among the Charlatans. The essay itself waxes lyrical on Dick’s many excellent qualities as a writer, and expounds upon the dire state of US sci-fi. Lem considered Dick to be the only writer exempt from his cynical view of American SF. It seems likely that Dick was unaware of Lem’s high opinion of him and that he took Lem’s disparaging comments personally, stating in his letter to the FBI:
>"Lem’s creative abilities now appear to have been overrated and Lem’s crude, insulting and downright ignorant attacks on American science fiction and American science fiction writers went too far too fast and alienated everyone but the Party faithful (I am one of those highly alienated)."
For the right price, you can buy a Presidential Pardon after a hit-and-run before arriving at your destination on time. Tesla will even call the police car chase off in real time.
I'd guess that Lem used lieutenant rank from citizens' militia (which was back then the police force in Polish People's Republic), not knowing about rank changes in the UK - it was replaced by chief inspector as you linked. goodreads.com uses "Lt. Gregory" in book summary so it's not a translation issue.
This type of research is necessary if we want to do forensic pathology. Location affects fauna involved. And also weather and seasons affects how it progresses. One example I read was that different insects are present at different stages. So based on their cycles you can narrow down time of death somewhat.
There is a nuance between "secret" as used in "top secret" and secret as in "secretary". The later means more private than hidden from view. This is a secret location because the general public is not allowed to visit.
Maybe because "private" in English can also mean non-publicly-owned, ie in private hands. This facility could easily be a publicly-owned and yet not open to the public. English is weird.
For me the question is, why would it be static? A piece of fruit decomposing (on a tree or otherwise) clearly doesn't stay static, why would anything else?
The expectation that the majestiy of death respects the dignity of humans?
(Or too many bad movies and a society that tries to banish the fought of death, instead of accepting it as part of the natural cycle. Also, corpes are usually filled up to the top with formaldehyd.)
I had a near death experience when I was 10 years old. I’ve never found a valid scientific explanation for what I observed, considering I never heard of NDEs and this was pre-internet, and I had a classic NDE with a life review etc. Really can’t logically explain this
Considering how clueless we still are regarding how the brain works, and have only started to comprehensively map out the brains of the tiniest organisms, I really don't find it surprising that there's not yet a rigorous or even a reasonable approximate explanation for such a high level experience.
I was choking. I realized I was likely going to die, and I was very disappointed. My vision started to go fade even though my eyes were open. I saw vignettes of my life appear coming from the left, then playing like a video in front of my vision, then fading and going to the right, as the next vignette appeared. I was not scared so much as disappointed. The whole thing lasted somewhere between 30 and 60 seconds, at which point I snapped out of it, and grabbed some stranger's soda and poured it down my throat, which dislodged the food I was choking on.
You were choking so severely that you were beginning to black out, and then went another 30+ seconds (maybe your sense of time was altered?), before solving the problem yourself. Were there other people around that noticed you almost choked to death?
The poster you're replying to said "I never heard of NDEs" for the exact reason you are mis-correcting: to show that they were NOT simply regurgitating a cultural stereotype, but that it is in fact a real phenomenon.
Here's a tip for the Internet and for Real Life: Assume the most charitable interpretation when conversing with someone, not the least. It is more often correct, and it doesn't make you needlessly look like an asshole.
> to show that they were NOT simply regurgitating a cultural stereotype, but that it is in fact a real phenomenon.
Right, but does anyone think that that's what people with NDEs are doing?
I don't get what the poster was trying to say. It's like they're trying to debunk something that doesn't exist to need debunking? And the article isn't even about NDEs, like, at all.
I'm just really confused what the point of the comment was?
