continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[Captain Scarlet]

1-Well if there's no circulation and you wait for actual brain damage to occur from starvation, and expect any of the 609 to recover, that's crazy. If waiting for the brain to turn to a puddle of ooze is your criteria for actual death then there's not much room for recovery. I'm not trying to prove people can come back from the dead like zombies; I just think there is support that when the brain is inable to function it something is still functioning, I was talking about what your reasonable standards would be to establish total death and what sample size would be necessary. Let's keep this point about evidentiar standards for simplicities sake.
2- will resolve the definition first, I didn't forget it
3-
a) not if by you you mean the physical sense of yourself and your actions alone in a predominantly physical universe
b) Why doesn't it work? It fits the definition. It is not damaged by material events, any more than the tape in the camera man's tape is damaged by filming somone getting killed. Could you please elaborate a little more on "just an avatar of me" and what you mean by " (and vice versa) ". As far as it's worth to you that's I suppose that could be valid based on your elaboration of the above.
c) You're presuming the soul is meant to intervene when by my definition it's meant to inform. That's something else entirely. I don't know if God has to allow pyscopaths to be born and/or created by circumstance. Wouldn't that interfere with causality and free will? I know in the example we're using someone with no free will, but that's the exception, not the rule. Practically, death is necessary. Opportunity to do good or evil, hardships and triumphs are tools for growth and understanding. I would be negligent if it serves no purpose and is not a direct consequence of free will.

1) I think neurologists would disagree with you. There is no evidence of a soul and that it survives death, experts in this field are agreed and the evidence from neurology is clear. Everything in science is tentative and there are cases that warrant investigation, but these should not be over-attributed. There are junkies who have seen the astral plane, cider drinkers who have seen aliens and salty old sea dogs who swear blind they've seen the craken. They all merit some investigation but as an inductive argument to support your case; I can only say for me they lack force.
3)
a) This seems to run counter to xtian teaching? Thou shalt not kill seems very clear to me and thus I have an issue with your definition at least insofar as I understand xtianity
b) I think your definition is thus far consistent however. For me the film crew analogy has 2 problems: firstly a film crew is material with the ability to interact in the material world; secondly it is a passive presence. If having a soul was important it would be an active presence (ie we couldn't live or exist without one). I agree, if there was an immaterial soul it could not be damaged by physical events. Thus if a soul is truly us (back to a definition) it cannot explain how our personalities become altered as a result of trauma. An avatar being a proxy for a not the real thing, ie the person is not the soul and the soul is not the person.
c) No i'm not presuming that. I'm saying that if pyschopaths are born/made it probably wasn't their fault. They have limited control or even no control over their urges. Their material or immaterial selves or both could be damaged. Why does a god allow this? Seemingly he has robbed them of free will (esp to do good), and whilst they may be exceptions, only a capricious and not an all loving or very very very etc benevolent entity would allow them to suffer. What does he do with them/their souls on judgement day. The simplest answer for me is that souls/god etc do not exist.