Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?

[arewethereyet]

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

Pretending great wisdom lies in the words from language that one is betting one’s interlocutors to not be fluent in matters a lot, it matters to the tune of being the bedrock of entire epistemologies, just ask Belaqua or neo.

Just the ones I go to for great wisdom.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Do I really need to explain that?

What do you mean? I am arguing that consciousness being the product of the brain is a lot better explanation than souls being timeless. Don't you agree?

Sure, but if that's what you intend to argue, then you're going to need a whole different argument - as this... 

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?

...doesn't get you to that.  I think we might have a legit translation issue here.  Not being aware of time is not what the term "timeless" refers to.  A delta wing is timeless.

[Belacqua]

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?

χρονος is passing time. As you live your life, time goes by and you get older.

καιρος is the opportune moment. If you wrote "now is the time to strike" in Greek, you'd use καιρος. 

I'm not sure why Mr. Alcor said what he did. 

I think that Bergson's definitions of duration (la durée) would be more relevant here. He contrasted two types of time: what we might clock time vs. experienced time. We know that clock time goes by consistently and regularly. We might call it objective time. Then there is also time as we experience it, which feels different. Time slows down while you're in the dentist's chair or in a train that has stopped between stations. It flies by when you're having fun. It may seem to stop if you're in bed with someone nice or otherwise fully engaged emotionally -- a "flow state." 

So this may be applicable to the soul question. The individual's perception of time stops while he's asleep or unconscious, but clock time marches on.

[Belacqua]

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.

Language study is wonderful! Different languages cause people to categorize the world in different ways, and when you learn the difference it teaches you that your accustomed ways are not the only ones. 

Japanese has a lot of differences from English, which I've enjoyed learning about. For religion, the word kami is translated into English as "god" or "divine," but historically it's just not the same thing as what Europeans think of as God. 

And there's surprising semantic categories. In the dictionary it says that blue is ao, 青, and green is midori, 緑, but they are used differently than in English. For example, traffic signals are called blue. Beginners, who would be called "green" in English, are blue. 

Japanese has a lot more words for "love," which makes English seem a little imprecise. It sounds strange for a Japanese speaker to use the same word for loving your wife and loving ice cream.

[FlatAssembler]

What do you mean? I am arguing that consciousness being the product of the brain is a lot better explanation than souls being timeless. Don't you agree?

Sure, but if that's what you intend to argue, then you're going to need a whole different argument - as this... 

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?

...doesn't get you to that.  I think we might have a legit translation issue here.  Not being aware of time is not what the term "timeless" refers to.  A delta wing is timeless.

What is "delta wing"?

[FlatAssembler]

I think most of the people don't really believe in heaven, that they would behave very differently if they believed in it. Why cry when somebody dear to you dies if it's only "goodbye for now", rather than "goodbye forever"?

Since that’s not even an attempt to answer my question, I’ll rephrase it: How do you differentiate faith from belief?

Boru

I think that "faith" is closer to "hope" than "belief". I'd suggest you watch this video: https://youtu.be/dMaK6k4oZ20

[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

Pretending great wisdom lies in the words from language that one is betting one’s interlocutors to not be fluent in matters a lot, it matters to the tune of being the bedrock of entire epistemologies, just ask Belaqua or neo.

You know, I think you are right. I think that, if Andreas Alcor really had a point, he could have presented it a lot more clearly. I think the point he was trying to make it is "Maybe everybody whose brain wasn't working for some time had a near-death experience, but the vast majority of people just don't remember it.".

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, but if that's what you intend to argue, then you're going to need a whole different argument - as this... 
...doesn't get you to that.  I think we might have a legit translation issue here.  Not being aware of time is not what the term "timeless" refers to.  A delta wing is timeless.

What is "delta wing"?

The triangular profile you see on so many flying things.  From birds to earliest tech renditions to childrens paper gliders to cutting edge aerospace.  Timeless.  The term also refers to persistent aesthetic choices.  Grandfather clocks are timeless - despite keeping time..you see?  

What you're wondering about is chronoperception, not timelessness. "Souls" may be (or are implied to be) lacking in that area. A malfunctioning or non operative chronoperceptive apparatus would be a credible explanation for our inability to perceive the passage of time in such situations. Like a broken watch, lol.

[Anomalocaris]

True delta wing is not quite cutting edge anymore and has largely been superseded in aircraft use, thus it’s timelessness is tenuous. just saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think grandfather clocks are great either - just helping our boy english.