Theory:Torchwood television discontinuity and plot holes/The Categories of Life


 * At least three times before (the severed head, the abused wife, and the crushed 'Dead is Dead' lady), it was made clear that even the 'dead' maintained conciousness -- and Jack remarked at how 'alive' everyone was. Yet the people held in the Modules all appeared to be comatose. Not sure how much more 'brain dead' one could be as nothing more than a burned skull severed from a body or crushed into a tin can, but both of those people were obviously awake and aware. Plus the need for boatloads of painkillers has been emphasized. So which is it? Brain dead and aware or brain dead and unconcious?
 * Excellent question; although I would accept the idea of shock (they've all just simultaniously fainted?) or chemically induced coma (instead of painkillers and as an aid to healing).


 * As much as these questions seem obvious to me, it kinda bothers me that none of the doctors "studying" the situation have mentioned the following, nor "reporters" (even the ones asking whether suicide was still possible): Death by Fire (building fire or volcano or "The Module"), carnivore (being eaten), acid (being dissolved), specific poisons (agent Peterfield tried to use arsenic on Jack, but lethal injections didn't work on Oswald Danes).
 * Apparently the author has decided that these specifics would detract from the overall story... I find the lack of answers somewhat distracting.
 * I don't think there's an interesting question there.
 * For example, if someone is broken down to sub-cellular components, it makes no difference whether they're "alive" or "dead" (except in the sense that if there's an afterlife they might be trapped here instead of getting to go there, which nobody alive would be able to detect anyway). What exactly would you want the doctors and scientists to test for?
 * If you're looking for a sharp dividing line beyond which the question becomes irrelevant, there isn't one. That's really the whole point of 20th-century biology and the death of vitalism. And it's also an important theme in the show that no one should be trying to draw those lines.
 * As for the rest: we know that people have tried a wide variety of ways to kill themselves or others and obviously failed, or we would have heard about it. Do we really need a catalog of exactly which poisons have and haven't been tried, etc.?
 * For example, if someone is broken down to sub-cellular components, it makes no difference whether they're "alive" or "dead" (except in the sense that if there's an afterlife they might be trapped here instead of getting to go there, which nobody alive would be able to detect anyway). What exactly would you want the doctors and scientists to test for?
 * If you're looking for a sharp dividing line beyond which the question becomes irrelevant, there isn't one. That's really the whole point of 20th-century biology and the death of vitalism. And it's also an important theme in the show that no one should be trying to draw those lines.
 * As for the rest: we know that people have tried a wide variety of ways to kill themselves or others and obviously failed, or we would have heard about it. Do we really need a catalog of exactly which poisons have and haven't been tried, etc.?
 * As for the rest: we know that people have tried a wide variety of ways to kill themselves or others and obviously failed, or we would have heard about it. Do we really need a catalog of exactly which poisons have and haven't been tried, etc.?
 * As for the rest: we know that people have tried a wide variety of ways to kill themselves or others and obviously failed, or we would have heard about it. Do we really need a catalog of exactly which poisons have and haven't been tried, etc.?