Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?

[FlatAssembler]

In my video explaining why I don't believe in afterlife, I used, among other arguments, one argument which I came up with myself: "If humans have souls, how it is that humans who have been unconscious for a long period of time have no idea how much time has passed?".
Andreas Alcor wrote a response to my video. He wrote that he thinks that my argument is an equivocation fallacy, that I am confusing two meanings of the word "time", one is Ancient Greek "χρονος" and one is Ancient Greek "καιρος". I tried looking up those words in a dictionary, but I still fail to understand his response. The only thing I found is that "καιρος" means "weather" in Modern Greek, but that's obviously irrelevant. So, I asked a question about the difference between those two Ancient Greek words on Latin Language StackExchange (in that question, I also posted exactly what I said in the video and what Andreas Alcor wrote in response).
So, what do you think?

[Nay_Sayer]

I think you should get back to studying.

[FlatAssembler]

I think you should get back to studying.

I would rather not study so much to trigger my psychotic disorder again. Because I think too much studying triggered my psychotic disorder.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't strike me as an equivocation, but it might not be demonstrative either. IE that unconscious people (souls, in exchange) might not have temporal awareness doesn't show that they don't exist. It would be informative, though. If it really is a problem for souls..that exist... to account for time (or remember) then we're positing that souls suffer from something we'd call a disorder.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not at all convinced that the Greek words matter. If you had expressed the same notion without referencing Greek, your argument would stand or fall on other issues.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

It doesn't strike me as an equivocation, but it might not be demonstrative either. IE that unconscious people (souls, in exchange) might not have temporal awareness doesn't show that they don't exist. It would be informative, though. If it really is a problem for souls..that exist... to account for time (or remember) then we're positing that souls suffer from something we'd call a disorder.

I think that saying "Souls are timeless." is an ad-hoc hypothesis. It makes the theory more complicated, as one would not expect that from "The brain is the antenna for the soul.". In fact, it makes the theory significantly more complicated, as now you need to explain how can a soul which exists outside of time communicate with a brain which exists within time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do I really need to explain that?

[SirLuck]

Afterlife isn’t really possible. It would be a different creature, so wouldn’t actually be you.

[FlatAssembler]

I’m not at all convinced that the Greek words matter. If you had expressed the same notion without referencing Greek, your argument would stand or fall on other issues.

Boru

Well, sometimes the language does matter when discussing philosophy. Croatian, for example, has the same word for "belief" and "faith", and it is annoying to explain people that those are not the same thing. The guy who rode the airplane in 9/11 attack presumably believed in heaven, but most people don't, most people just have faith that heaven is real.

EDIT: And it's not just philosophy, it's also, for example, control engineering. Croatian has different words for the "gain" as in "gain of an amplifier" (we call that "pojačanje") and "gain" on the Bode Plots (we call that "amplituda"). The fact that English uses the same word for both makes it harder to understand English texts about control engineering.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Do I really need to explain that?

You really don’t.

Boru