Problem is, it’s not after death.
If one “comes back” he was not dead.
Dead is when you don’t come back m
We have assurance, we don’t need this pseudoscience.
The article used the term, 'clinical death', which is the cessation of circulation and breathing. It goes on to say that the brain typically stops functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping.
The dead-dead you're describing is the persistence of the condition which began as clinical death.
I'm not sure that's right. Dead is dead. The pronouncement of death occurs because there were no signs of life apparent to the outside observer. Your argument for the patient not being dead depends on future events, which cannot be known at the time of the observation.
If, for example, the patient were dropped into a vat of liquid helium, all electrical and chemical activity would stop. There would be no question that the man in the vat would be dead to any observer. If we adopt your interpretation of death, whether the man were actually dead or not would depend on whether future medical science advances to the point where someone could be revived from being deep frozen, and then whether this particular person was.
Then, if you decide that the person is not dead because he is later revived, you have to ask where was he in the meantime?