It doesn’t define what a body without a soul is at all. If we are to presume a soul exists, as the question instructs us to, then we need the variable information of what those without souls who are unfrozen become. It feels like they’re forcing assumptions where no justification for said assumptions are made.
Yeah, i think the point hinges on the various interpretations of the soul. For example, the Catholic concept where the soul is not necessarily tied to the experience of consciousness vs other conceptualizations where it is. The inclusion is just odd. Maybe it’s supposed to be an exploration of how statistics vary between this interpretations or lack there of.
But how often must we make decisions based on incomplete information in our lives? Usually not such serious ones though. It’s not meant to be scientific, I just thought it was fun.
I’m fine with incomplete information, but they presented conflicting information, at least in my eyes.
By defining the “soul” as we understand it in common usage, the very concept of “soul death” is only comparable to actual death, so by stating that people do live without them, they’re effectively invalidating the idea of a soul as understood in the first place.
Let me be clear, I understand the point they are trying to make, and I understand that this very sticking point is the crux of the question. But I still feel they are invalidating their own question by acknowledging folks do wake up post-“soul death.”
It doesn’t define what a body without a soul is at all. If we are to presume a soul exists, as the question instructs us to, then we need the variable information of what those without souls who are unfrozen become. It feels like they’re forcing assumptions where no justification for said assumptions are made.
Yeah, i think the point hinges on the various interpretations of the soul. For example, the Catholic concept where the soul is not necessarily tied to the experience of consciousness vs other conceptualizations where it is. The inclusion is just odd. Maybe it’s supposed to be an exploration of how statistics vary between this interpretations or lack there of.
But how often must we make decisions based on incomplete information in our lives? Usually not such serious ones though. It’s not meant to be scientific, I just thought it was fun.
I’m fine with incomplete information, but they presented conflicting information, at least in my eyes.
By defining the “soul” as we understand it in common usage, the very concept of “soul death” is only comparable to actual death, so by stating that people do live without them, they’re effectively invalidating the idea of a soul as understood in the first place.
Let me be clear, I understand the point they are trying to make, and I understand that this very sticking point is the crux of the question. But I still feel they are invalidating their own question by acknowledging folks do wake up post-“soul death.”
You are correct and I concede.