The brain is not dead when the cortex is dead.

Yes, that's right. After the brain is starved of oxygen and glucose, it's possible for different cells from different structures in the brain to continue to function for longer than than medical EEG can measure EM activity from cortex cells. A good few minutes longer according to the results in this paper.

I don't think there is any way to falsify that assertion. It may well be that some neurons deep in the brain still have electrical potential across them after a few minutes, I don't know.

What is known is that the detectible activity that is presumed to be responsible for the creation of the mind disappears after approximately 20 seconds along with the reflexes of the central nervous system.

The brain stem

The brain stem is the lower part of the brain that's connected to the spinal cord (part of the central nervous system in the spinal column).
The brain stem is responsible for regulating most of the body's automatic functions that are essential for life. These include:

• breathing
  
• heartbeat
  
• blood pressure
  
• swallowing
  

The brain stem also relays information to and from the brain to the rest of the body, so it plays an important role in the brain’s core functions, such as consciousness, awareness and movement.

After brain death, it's not possible for someone to remain conscious.
How brain death occurs
Brain death can occur when the blood and/or oxygen supply to the brain is stopped. This can be caused by:

• cardiac arrest – when the heart stops beating and the brain is starved of oxygen
  

The brain stem is responsible for regulating most of the body's automatic functions that are essential for life. These include:

• breathing
  
• heartbeat
  
• blood pressure
  
• swallowing
  

Isn't it already clear that none of these things are happening during cardiac arrest? If it isn't able to carry out these basic functions, how could it do something vastly more complicated?

Isn't it already clear that none of these things are happening during cardiac arrest? If it isn't able to carry out these basic functions, how could it do something vastly more complicated?

Precisely, Typoz.  Succinct and spot on.

There is no meaning to the phrase the "brain being dead". There is no definition of such a thing.

More to the point- even if the brain shows some sort of electrical activity for a few seconds or even a very few minutes after cessation of heart activity, so what? Can anyone make a reasonable claim that high level brain function can happen in such a state? Of course not. 

This whole line of inquiry is pointless, and only serves as a shiny object that skeptics can point to in order to avoid the heart of the matter, which is: how can one have an ultra-real experience while the brain is totally non-functional or at least profoundly diminished? 

This is the core of why Eben Alexander, who is a brain surgeon after-all, unequivocally stated, based on his own personal NDE (or call it a close-to-death experience if you like), that the seat of our life experience, and consciousness itself, is clearly NOT in our brain.

There is no meaning to the phrase the "brain being dead". There is no definition of such a thing.

More to the point- even if the brain shows some sort of electrical activity for a few seconds or even a very few minutes after cessation of heart activity, so what? Can anyone make a reasonable claim that high level brain function can happen in such a state? Of course not. 

This whole line of inquiry is pointless, and only serves as a shiny object that skeptics can point to in order to avoid the heart of the matter, which is: how can one have an ultra-real experience while the brain is totally non-functional or at least profoundly diminished? 

This is the core of why Eben Alexander, who is a brain surgeon after-all, unequivocally stated, based on his own personal NDE (or call it a close-to-death experience if you like), that the seat of our life experience, and consciousness itself, is clearly NOT in our brain.

"This whole line of inquiry is pointless,"

I agree, jkmac, but that's what it's come down to now. The 'sceptics' (I don't mean Max, he uses this line of enquiry to try to keep his theory afloat) are desperate to cling on to anything and 'some neurons' still firing is much better in their view than the impossible notion that we possess a detachable mind or "soul."

Anything at all in fact is better than that.

"This whole line of inquiry is pointless,"

I agree, jkmac, but that's what it's come down to now. The 'sceptics' (I don't mean Max, he uses this line of enquiry to try to keep his theory afloat) are desperate to cling on to anything and 'some neurons' still firing is much better in their view than the impossible notion that we possess a detachable mind or "soul."

Anything at all in fact is better than that.

I would like to encourage those people to be a bit more brave of heart, and trust the data they see rather than cling in fear to something they probably sense is in great question.

I would like to encourage those people to be a bit more brave of heart, and trust the data they see rather than cling in fear to something they probably sense is in great question.

"and trust the data they see"

Unfortunately they never will. It cannot be, therefore it isn't.

"and trust the data they see"

Unfortunately they never will. It cannot be, therefore it isn't.

Regretfully this is all to often so. 

But for every person who feels that way there's one or more who just needs a little encouragement. 

"This whole line of inquiry is pointless,"

(I don't mean Max, he uses this line of enquiry to try to keep his theory afloat) 

That too is pointless, since the theory even if viable, doesn't correspond with the evidence it would seek to explain. That it additionally isn't viable makes the whole enterprise an ever bigger folly.

But we've been through all this before.