Re: Too bad nospam can't see this: Apple adds call recording to iOS 18

On 2024-08-12 12:53, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-08-12 10:22, badgolferman wrote:

Alan wrote:
>

On 2024-08-12 09:40, badgolferman wrote:

Alan wrote:
>

All you've discovered is that the metrics for declaring death are
wrong.
>
Death, by definition, is that state from which you cannot come
back.
>
This is no different than when doctors used to believe that no
heartbeat was definitive proof of death.

>
When did you become a doctor?

>
One doesn't have to be a doctor to realize that there is a difference
between how we DECIDE if someone is dead vs whether or not they are
actually dead.

>
Well, all those doctors declared these people back from the dead.  That
contradicts the original declaration that no one recovers from the
death.

>
All the doctors who didn't have the tools to determine if there was
brain activity declared people dead and they weren't dead eithers.
>
No one recovers from being actually dead.
>
People DO recover from being declared dead.
>
Is that simple enough for you?
>
A doctor declaring someone dead does not mean they are ACTUALLY dead.
>
A long time ago, scientists declared that the sun revolved around the earth.
>
Do you get me yet?
>

 The article I posted was describing an incident from 2008. Do they qualify
as backward superstitious doctors who can’t determine if people are dead?

They never seem "backward" or "superstitious" in recent history, but they simply didn't have the tools.

 I’m sure you’re way smarter than they were so you can likely answer that
question.

I don't have to be smarter to know that as science evolves we learn more and more.
The doctors in the (say) 1950s (or at some earlier time) declared people dead based on the lack of a pulse. Were they "backward" or "superstitious" based on the fact that we learned that the heart could be restarted?