Being alive is an activity not a condition.

For complex beings like humans it's the coordinated activity of
millions of cells, acting in a myriad of groups (muscle, glands,
organs etc.). Death is the cessation of this activity, or, perhaps,
the absence of this activity. The activity of living cells is easily
distinguishable from the slow chemical changes that occur in a "dead"
cell; the living cell takes in nourishment and transforms it to
energy.

There is in nature a kind of life after death, creatures large and
small use the materials in which activity has ceased as food; thus
life is perpetuated. The rotting and corruption of corpses is not
activity of the dead cells but the activity of living microorganisms
that are using the corpse as food.

If there is a relationship between living and being aware or having a
sense of identity, then when the living stops the awareness stops. If
there is no such relationship and the fact that "you" have a body is
some bizzare coincidence then death or living of the body is
irrelevant. It becomes pointless to talk of what happens after death
because the body and the "you" are not related

On Jul 2, 10:42 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed earthlink.net>
wrote:

OK, if you say so, but lots of humans would disagree with you.

True enough, for the body.

You cannot prove that cessation of physical activity translates into
anything beyond death of the body, just by the inactivity of the cells
of the physical body, now can you?

On Jul 3, 3:42 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jul 3, 6:26 pm, Hardpan yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 10:27 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 3, 4:26 am, Hardpan yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Ed earthlink.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:22:18 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8@gmail.com"
gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 4, 3:43 am, Hardpan yahoo.com> wrote: