Death

Okay, I was just watching an assassins creed trailer, where the new assassin stabs a man in the throat. the guy slowly turns around, grasps his throat, blood seeps over his hand and he falls down, presumably dead.And I got to thinking. Many times I have seen, in movies, games and what not, people injured in places that I wouldn't think meant an instant death, yet they die instantly, or nearly.Sure, a knife in the liver is most probably a lethal injury, but not an instant kill. It would take a few seconds, perhaps even minutes for the person to die from that, longer if he tried to stop the bleeding.So I was wondering what you guys thought about this? Are there any places on the body where an instant kill would be plausible? For cause of argument, the weapon doing the injuring is a blade of some sort, in momento of the trailer that inspired my thoughts on this, and instant kill means death within a second or so of the injury.And no points for suggesting the obvious, like the spine or the brain. Seriously, we aren't idiots here.

Instant deaths is just a myth. not counting if your blown up or your brain is turned into a mush. Even decapitated heads remain working for about 10 seconds before the oxygen is used up. The fastest way to kill someone without dealing direct damage to the spine,brain or heart(a bullet or knife through the heart gives the subject estimated 10 to 15 seconds to live) is actually poisen, which, is eaqually fast as cutting once throat or stabb through the heart or both lunges. the reason why throat slicing is so popular I would think is these 3 factors.

1. its a soft spot, making it easier to damage then chest and cranium.
2. the amount of blood resulting from the attack, leaving a impression of gore and fatality which only partial eruptions of the skull could imitate.
3. its the only place where "instant death" is almost 100% guarantied with a blade shorter then 15 cm. since a perfect throat cut not only cuts 2 juggular veins but also your feeding/breathing tube.

But there is a factor which may interest you. while the effect in itself is not lethal, the bi-effects are. Im talking about pain. with enough pain inflicted upon a person in short period a time, the shock which just usually makes the victim pass out, might be big enough, to even shut down the heart, and even brain. resulting in what movies and games populary brand them "instant deaths". this may be accomplished without dealing lethal wounds at all.

Pretty much ditto @ what Nemo said.

Meh, I'm an old fashion comic book style believer.

Cut off the head: lotsa blood and a thump.
Slice the throat: lotsa blood and some gagging, then the thump.
Stab/shot in the heart: lotsa blood and a yell perhaps, then the thump.
Spin ripped out through the anal cavity (jack style oh yeah) : lotsa blood and a lotta screaming before the thump.

I have heard from reliable sources though, that the very instant the spine is broken, if higher than the waist, everything in the body stops working immediately.

rayx10 wrote:

have heard from reliable sources though, that the very instant the spine is broken, if higher than the waist, everything in the body stops working immediately.

The spine could shatter or brake multiple places, even has high as the neck without being fatale or endangering really. a broken spines only certain bi-effect is that you wont be able to be standing untill the spine have repaired itself. if you want to stop the body from working, you have to sever the spianl nerves, which is following the spine. they are not directly attached to the bone itself but the tissue attached to the muscles and bones. if they are cut, you have 10.15 seconds of life left. since its stops the heart and lungs from working. and at the moment the nerves are severed, your body as you said; goes thump. since it stops the muscles in your body to keep you on your feet.

So a horizontal sword slash against ones back, severs the spine and any tissue around it + blood and spinal fluid loss pretty much means your goose is cooked.

Man what a morbid theme! thank god I saw sweeney todd recently.

I think it is safe to say that instant death might be called "incapacitated" instead. Your bodily functions might stop working hindering any movement, but you might still be alive and feel for quite some time until you either bleed out or the pain knocks you out cold...

Wait a minute.... what about that whole neck snapping thing? where one creep up from behind and grabs the head and twists, thats pretty much instant right? not many seconds alive if your head aint in its socket.

Well, the problem is there is still Air in the brain, you'd function from 10 sec, as nemo said, I've heard halv a minute. But it does not matter. Pretty much the only thing that would justify a true instant death would be 20 kilo of C4 taped strategically all over your body, completely turning you to dust, or big pulps of blood and flesh. But, yeah, to the naked eye it would look like you died the secound the neck snapped. But the truth is that you are still in there a for a short time period.

Which is why I am so expharased at many of the deaths in games, movies and such now. Take this trailer for instance:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-star-wars/49937
In it, several sith attack several Jedi. battle and such. In the end, one of the jedi fight one of the sith in an epic battle and shit. then, the sith manages to stab the jedi through the stomach and out the back, probably. We don't actually see the stab, only that it is below the chest.
The jedi collapses right away, powerlessly staring as the sith walks away, before dying pitifully.
what the hell?
If I was the jedi, and I was stabbed like that, I am pretty sure I would stab the guy as well.
"Damn, but at least I'll take you with me!" is what I would have said.
As farthmeista said, there is very little that can varrant an "instant death" seal. Although we are completely disregarding the debate about what is 'dead' or not, but that is beside the point.
Shot gun blast to the head, instant if you ask me unless you are Wolverine, and even he isn't exactly a happy camper after that.
Hidden blade to the kiddney, not so much instant, if even lethal at all. We have two for a reason.
You see in movies where someone takes out the bad guy guards from a distance with, for instance, a throwing knife. Wouldn't it be plausible that the guard would have time to raise the alarm before dying?
Geez, I have half a mind about going to the hospital or something and asking a doctor about this, but I would probably be arrested for planning murder or something.

Haha, yeah. I know. I blame Hollywood. Not every car blow up upon crashing. You are not blown backwards from gun shots. You are more or less safe one meter under the surface of water etc. None of that holds true in Hollywood.

GO SITHS! now where was I..yes.. the thing I get frustrated by in movies and in games is the enemies/villains total inept aiming capabilities. compared tp the protagonists expert marksmanship. a man, simply dont miss when firing a uzi at arms lenght! neither do a man hit between the eyes of the subject during a high velocity carchase on a bumpy road! seems like firearms skill is synonymus having a name. once you know the name of the person, all of its fighting prowness increase dramatically. but back on the topic at hand. instant deaths are overused and slightly disfactory if handed out to easy. I yearn for the game which the enemies after a couple of shots or stabs, crawls away in fear or strikes you with his last breath, fueled with mindconsuming hate and spite!

But I think that movies, and games use instant deaths cuz its easy. if every npc or nameless grunt survives, if only for a few extra seconds, the movie/game would have to many elemtents to keep track on. therfore, instant deaths saves the gamemakers alot of extra animation and the filmakers alot of film.

Nemonomicon wrote:

But I think that movies, and games use instant deaths cuz its easy. if every npc or nameless grunt survives, if only for a few extra seconds, the movie/game would have to many elemtents to keep track on. therfore, instant deaths saves the gamemakers alot of extra animation and the filmakers alot of film.

What should we categorizes this then? Simply bad writing or directing?

Boehlke wrote:

Nemonomicon wrote:

But I think that movies, and games use instant deaths cuz its easy. if every npc or nameless grunt survives, if only for a few extra seconds, the movie/game would have to many elemtents to keep track on. therfore, instant deaths saves the gamemakers alot of extra animation and the filmakers alot of film.

What should we categorizes this then? Simply bad writing or directing?

I would say directing, if there are many people besides the main cast. to much focus on the npcs death and will to live may be distracting from the main story. not every dying person is conscious when dying, and most are either shocked with fear,pain or suprise to act or say something. grasping that they are dying might be all that they may be able to do. so I would say, in terms of gamemaking and filmmaking, its neccesary. but I still want to see this rule bent occasionally. since it gives the game a little more flavour. final acts and words should not only be limited to main characters.

I too would like to see the game where instant deaths are much harder to hand out. It was always one of the main things that bothered me about the metal gear solid games. You do not die instantly when shot in the crotch, its just not like that. You may bleed to death, but only after at least thirty seconds.
No, I want a ninja/stealth based game where you have to kill in a certain manner, i.e snap the neck, cut the throat, stab the brain or something, to get a stealth kill, and if you don't the guard can fight back, even though dying anyway, or at least alert his mates.
That would be challenging and realistic.

Beast King wrote:

I too would like to see the game where instant deaths are much harder to hand out. It was always one of the main things that bothered me about the metal gear solid games. You do not die instantly when shot in the crotch, its just not like that. You may bleed to death, but only after at least thirty seconds.
No, I want a ninja/stealth based game where you have to kill in a certain manner, i.e snap the neck, cut the throat, stab the brain or something, to get a stealth kill, and if you don't the guard can fight back, even though dying anyway, or at least alert his mates.
That would be challenging and realistic.

That game exist, its called Tenchu. had a demo for it on my ps1. awesome game really, maybe a bit outdatet now.

yeah, a bit outdated now. I have a tenchu game, and yes it is sort of like that, but still...instant kills is much to easy in those games as well.

Edit: by the way, one movie does this not dying instantly rather well, me thinks. Its the Fellowship of the Ring, the scene when Boromir saves two of the hobbits from big bad uruk-hai. In that scene, Boromir is struck first with one arrow, then another, then another and he still fights on. Sure, its all epic and slow motion and his redeaming moment in the movie, but the poin is, he gets hit by an arrow in a lethal spot (his lung) and he continues slaughtering uruk-hai. then he is hit in the liver, falls down a bit, but gets up and continues the fight. Then he is hit in the other lung and still manages to fight on...sortof. He collapses shortly thereafter, but he doesn't die until at least five minutes later, after Aragon has fought and killed the Uruk-hai that shot Boromir. A rather sad scene, but you get my point, right? He was hit in a lethal spot, multiple times even, and fought on!
I think this scene was the one thing the movie did better than the book. In the book, he was pierced by "a dozen arrows" i.e 12!?! That's a bit much, but this is beside the point. I want to see more like this, more "last stand, I'll at least take you with me!" things.

Okay, new direction for this thread. How do you want to die? If you could choose, how would you die?I would die in a shower of blood after fighting to the death against a dragon. Or have a heart attack while having sex with a beautiful lady, whichever is fine.

What the hell is it with this great interest in death and death methods and ways to die on!?
it disturbs me deeply to witness this demention

In my sleep, in a fight against impossible odds, or self sacrifice. Not that im in a hurry, wouldnt mind living a few centuries longer if my healt where fine.

And death is a subject that is interesting. since it is the only thing in our life that is certain, yet we fear it, since it means for the most of us the end. death is the most natural thing in the world, but also the event that that have the most myth and mystery connected to it. death is so many things. its salvation and damnation,certainty and mystery, loved and hated, its a beginning and a end. And most of all, your view on it, defines you more then anything else.

Dragon-of-Legends wrote:

What the hell is it with this great interest in death and death methods and ways to die on!?
it disturbs me deeply to witness this demention

Death is, like nemo says, one of the things that will always facinate and terrify humanity. It is the salvation of a long, hard life, the theif of a brilliant, sunny life, the liberator of pain, the deliverer of uncertainty and much more.
Death is the one thing, the one thing that is impossible to know what comes after. Those of the living will never know of death.
Life and death are the most important parts of existance, beginning and end, alfa and omega.

And why do you call it a demention? this is a free discussion between friends about a subject that interests most human beings, namely death. I was planning to ask what people thought/believed came after death later in the thread.
And if this discussion is disturbing, why do you like WoD? Isn't a large part of that game focused on death and ways to give death to others while keeping others from dealing death to you?

Beast King wrote:

. I was planning to ask what people thought/believed came after death later in the thread.

I'll answer you what I think, and what I WANT to believe.

I think there is nothing after death. There is no more, no after life, nothing, we simply cease to exist. It's a demoralizing thought, but it is what I believe. That mindset also in my point of view makes life utter meaningless.

What I WANT to believe, is that there is something after death, anything, really, just as long as it is not what I said above. I fear an complete end.

All humans want to believe that there is something after death, that we do not simply disappear into nothingness when our hearts stop beating. This is why religion was made. Religion is nothing more than an assurance that there is something beyond death, even if that assurance comes from those that have not yet seen what lies beyond death, i.e those that are still alive.
It is easy for us to believe in God and heaven because it fits with our basic desire to not disappear after death.
It is a basic instinct in humans to not disappear when they die. this is one of the drives to reproduce, to leave a little bit of oneself behind. this is also installend into parental instincts. You often hear about a mother risking her life to protect her young. this isn't even exclusive to humans, almost all animals do this. The instinct to protect one's young can be summed up like this: "At least my genes will survive". this can be translated into: "At least a little bit of myself will live on"
This is a vital instinct, as it has allowed all surviving species to evolve and well...survive. If we did not have this instinct, life would probably be a lot different.
Many would say that works of art also allows the artist to live on. Some would say people like Picasso, J.R.R Tolkien, Plato and any other artist that left behind some kind of work, will always live on, as long as their works continue to exist. It is an encouranging thought, and one that I myself am 'using'. I have a book, bought on Outland in Oslo. It is a leatherbound book with the title "Book of Shadows" in gold lettering. Inside, it is blank, or was when I bought it. This book I intend to leave behind for my decendants. I write things in this book, random things, important things, little and big things. I hope that one day, after my death, my grandchild or something will take the book from his/her shelf, sit down and read my ramblings. Maybe he/she will shake her head and dismiss them as useless ramblings by a strange man, or maybe he/she will enjoy the read, enjoy the peek into his/her grandfather's mind.
I find this thought to be comforting. Ironic as it is, I can live on, knowing I have more things to write in that book, and others like it, if I live my life as best as I can.

It is interesting to not that humans are so afraid of death, yet not at all afraid to deal death to others. Two soldiers meet on the battlefield and they try to kill each other. Why? "If I do not kill him, he will kill me!" is as likely a reason as "Duty""Orders""For Queen and country".
I find it rather ironic that while we are affraid to die, we kill others because of this fear.

As for my belief on death, I have to say as farthmeista says, I hope there is something after death, I don't wish to disappear after all. For if I disappear, would not every hardship, every drop of blood, sweat and tears I have sheed for the sake of growing as a person, growing as a human being, be in wain? Every piece of learning we have learned, every time we eat healthy instead of junky, every time we try to follow moral law and such, would not those moments be for nothing?
If there is no reward for the pure in the afterlife, what reason is there to be pure then?
If death is final, is there a reason for life then?

Beast King wrote:

As for my belief on death, I have to say as farthmeista says, I hope there is something after death, I don't wish to disappear after all. For if I disappear, would not every hardship, every drop of blood, sweat and tears I have sheed for the sake of growing as a person, growing as a human being, be in wain? Every piece of learning we have learned, every time we eat healthy instead of junky, every time we try to follow moral law and such, would not those moments be for nothing?
If there is no reward for the pure in the afterlife, what reason is there to be pure then?
If death is final, is there a reason for life then?

I do not belive in a afterlife, and I hope there is none. I would hate to think of this life, this existence as merely a test. The closest thing to "afterlife" I could belive in is the theory of 15 seconds. where if you die, and your brain is the only thing working while it uses up the rest of the oxygen. since when your dead, your senses is shut of, you are incapable of telling time, and a second could be anything, an hour, a year, or more..or even less then a second. and in is this state, the body dont have to maintaine its body, and all its energy goes to the part which mayor focus is not your body, but your subconcious. 15 seconds of a dream like state..which in your head, could last anything from 1 second, to a couple of millenia.

That's an interesting theory, but why would you not be able to tell time? How is our senses connected to telling how much time has passed?

To tell time, we need to compare a action with another action. the interaction between one event and another is vital to calculating the duration of the effect, and if we cant sense the actions we have no idea of how long it took. time is constant, its a fixed rate, but our senses are not. thats why, when we a bored, time moves slower, since we recieve less stimululation of our senses compared to the times we are exited, and time flies by. people in a coma, have no idea how long they have been away, and thats because their senses have been hut off. No senses, no ability to tell time. There is a reason for why they call the ability to calculate time; our sense of time.

hmm, and the 15 second theory would essentially mean the person is in a coma, strictly speaking, as death would only set in once those 15 seconds were over. Its an interesting theory, that's for sure.

the difference of the those 15 seconds and a coma, that is that in a coma, the body still functions mostly, and the brain activity is different. i think coma patients dont have their REM part of their active, stopping them from dreaming. but it is a fun theory. a century of dreaming.

would become boring after a while though. a century with the same thoughts all over again. An endless cycle.

The question, is it possible for the dream to be a lucid dream. If so. It would be freaking awesome. A galaxy mine to command!

But lucid dreams are damn rare man. It take long training to be able to have them on a regular basis. I think the odds of having that dream as a lucid dream is a rather low.

the easiest and oldest trick in the book. is to focus on the movement of your fingers. when done it dreams it seems disorted, and when you realize that. the lucid activity activates. now you have to train yourself to watch your fingers every 5 minutes, as a reflex in your waken state aswell :p but yeah, I bet the chance of it is rather low.

how will you be able to focus on the movement of your fingers when you can't sense your fingers? How do you even have senses in the dream, if the 'real' senses aren't working.
Do dream senses exists independant of normal senses? I don't think so. there is a reason people's eyes move when they dream, the senses work even while dreaming. People are known to feel something in a dream, only to wake up and realise they could feel the same thing there.

Beast King wrote:

how will you be able to focus on the movement of your fingers when you can't sense your fingers? How do you even have senses in the dream, if the 'real' senses aren't working.
Do dream senses exists independant of normal senses? I don't think so. there is a reason people's eyes move when they dream, the senses work even while dreaming. People are known to feel something in a dream, only to wake up and realise they could feel the same thing there.

I am waiting to see Nemo's come-back on this

Don't forget Ghost-emotions and feelings though, that might have something to do with it.

Ghost-emotions? Now that is something I haven't heard before.

Oh? Amputate your arm, and you'll still fell your fingers sometimes.

Oh, that. phantom pains. I know about those. Hmm, yeah you might have a point there. They might have something to do with the 'eternal dream' Nemo is talking about.
Or perhaps Final dream is a better way of saying it?

"In one famous case from Dement's sleep laboratory, sleep researchers noticed a series of large, up and down eye movements in a person during REM sleep. They immediately awakened the sleeper, who reported that he had just dreamed he was walking up some stairs. In a similar case report, a sleeper awakened after left-to-right eye movements said he was watching a table tennis match in a dream. In these cases, there was a clear relationship of dream content to eye movements. However, these eye movements were not the bursts or vibrations of the eyes that define REM sleep; they were slower, like normal eye movements. As it turned out, these findings were unusual. Normally eye movements cannot be related to dream content in any simple way.



Muscles often twitch or jerk during the falling-asleep process, especially after a day of heavy exercise. These twitches are called myoclonic contractions or sleep myoclonus. Myoclonus is a medical term referring to shock-like contractions of a portion of a muscle. Indeed, many people use the word "shock" or "jolt" to describe these sudden movements. Some scientists say myoclonic contractions while a person is falling asleep are the result of metabolic activity in recently exercised muscles."



Ergo, eye movemnt is not a effect relatet to sleep.



one dont sense memories through bodily senses, the effect it have on your physical being and senses is not a criteria, but a bi-effect. dreaming work regardles of your physical senses. waking up with the same feeling as in your dream, means that your mind plays tricks on you, it sends signals out in the body, telling it to feel a certain way. even if your body don function, the brain tries to send a message to the rest of the body, but message will never arrive.



in conclusion, your body can sense things in your dreams, regardless of your real senses. blind men sees in their dream I have heard.

Quote :

blind men sees in their dream

But how? if they were blinded, then sure as they have memories of seeing things, but those born blind could never see even in dreams, as dreams are the brain processing the memories and imprints it has aquired during the waking state.

Their mind create their own visual images which for they are "seeing". one dont need to see it to visualise it, just close your eyes, and imagine a whole new object, which dont exist. or try this. make a image of a nondescript sounds. when blind sees a tree in their dreams, its not a tree as we see it, they create their own version of the object, based on description given to them, by their other senses.

hmm...anyway, back on topic. What about the others in our esteemed forum. how would you like to die?

Freezing I guess. At first it quite uncomfortable, but then it is not.. Or so I hear. But still. 20kg of C4... wait have I already said this?

What about, least wishable death?

Iron maiden!!! Or some such torture device. Simply torture with death as a result I think...

You can say different ways you want to die, don't worry.
Perhaps dying slowly in agony from leukemia or something. then, when death finally hits and I feel no more pain...eternal peace.
Leas wishable...I don't know. being in outer space and have a ten cm diameter hole ripped in the space suit. I hear that is the worst way to die possible.