Knowing what parts of the brain shutdown first seems like it would be useful for easing pain or discomfort. And since dying can be an extended process for the elderly or terminally ill, being able to more accurately predict when a person will die can potentially ease the suffering of loved ones.

As someone who stayed with a loved one for 14 hours straight while she passed, it would have been nice if someone had been able to tell me if she had 2 or 12 hours left. I still would have stayed the whole time, of course, but knowing she had less or more time might have changed what a wanted to say and would have put my mind at ease about her suffering.

Understanding the process of dying is good research. You’re right that science can’t reach beyond death and shouldn’t try to, but gathering data on the process does have applications.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It wasn’t long ago that graves were built with ropes and bells. It took time to understand that there’s some relationship between electrical activity in the brain and death. Our understanding of death as a physical reality is young. The process of dying has much left to offer.

However, it’s the life after death and the intersection with spiritualism that I contest as unscientific. The article admits there’s a significant overlap with those who conflate science with convictions. It’s tempting to begin with a preconceived notion of the afterlife for the soul and then to try to find it in the available data. Indeed, I believe it mentions the camp focused on the physical study of death is the minority.

Perhaps a compromise proceeds with caution.