>equivalent to death
There's your problem. You're equating almost as absolutely. To quote another:
>"He is only mostly dead. Not all dead. You can bring them back to life if they are only mostly dead. Now, give me that stick."

>>14533
So somehow the universe knows when you're "absolutely" dead or not?

I never said being frozen is "almost" the same as being dead. There is no neurotransmitter action happening since literally everything is frozen. It is literally equivalent to death.

Just because something seems to physically preserve your body well does not mean you haven't reached a death state.

>>14537
>So somehow the universe knows when you're "absolutely" dead or not?
A more relatable phrase would be "beyond the point of resuscitation". Although this must be taken with a pinch as continued advancements in knowledge and technology have and will continue to allow us to resuscitate people from further into the "death state" than previously believed possible.

>There is no neurotransmitter action happening since literally everything is frozen. It is literally equivalent to death.
Think about what you said:
>Just because something seems to physically preserve your body well does not mean you haven't reached a death state.
Now consider the inverse:
Just because something appears to be physically dead doesn't mean it has reached a death state.

If you can be resuscitated then the death is not absolute and in an intelligent universe reincarnation would not be possible until your current body has reached absolute death.

>>14538
I'll repeat, with no neurotransmitter action happening, you are a solid mass like a rock. You are as good as dead.

>>14539
>You are as good as dead.
Again not an absolute.

I'll repeat:
If you can be resuscitated then the death is not absolute and in an intelligent universe reincarnation would not be possible until your current body has reached absolute death.

>>14540
A frozen solid mass is the same as a severed head from a body in a frozen state. You're applying some sort of ethereal mystical angelical quality to life as if to say the universe is aware when you are officially dead to grant you another life.

>>14541
>You're applying some sort of ethereal mystical angelical quality to life as if to say the universe is aware when you are officially dead to grant you another life.
You're the one who brought up reincarnation. How else do you propose the act of reincarnation is triggered?

>>14542
It makes sense what you are saying, but given the road-crash in time that is the example I gave, it proves that you might not be given another life.

Here's another way of looking at it: you can sever a frozen head in a cryogenically frozen chamber and nothing about their current state has changed. It's like chipping off the corner of a rock.

I wish I worded it this way. It drives the point home.

>>14543
Well, if we were to entertain the notion of your paradox there is no paradox. There's four possibilities.

1 - Your body requires your (original) soul to live.
Your original soul returns to your original body, this is your classic afterlife experience.

2 - A new soul is needed/created for the old body.
Simply put the new soul continues where the old soul left off and leads into its own reincarnation cycle on death.

3 - No soul is needed/created
The original body continues to live on and when it dies reincarnation does not occur.

4 - The soul is duplicated, basically number 2.

Being reincarnated could be likened to sleep, and is possible IMO.

When you go to sleep every night, you basically die. Your conscious shuts down and you stop functioning for a long period. This period from your perspective is basically death, however you wake up at the end and live again.

I'm sure you meant that being frozen and being introduced to a new species would basically mean living a totally different life and negate reincarnation, but if you carried your memories from your old life they would still effect the choices you made after waking.

Are people reincarnated though? Not often, I think. You can surely fuck up your chance at another go around with one ride here.

>>14546
>Are people reincarnated though? Not often, I think. You can surely fuck up your chance at another go around with one ride here.
Depends on your school of thought, for some reincarnation is simply part of the process for existence. For others the karma you accumulate plays a part in your future reincarnation(s), a life of blessings or misery could be the result of previous karma accumulated and even the form to which you were reincarnated may be affected by your past actions.

>>14548
In my religion it isn't something that is dependent on a person at all

>>14549
>In my religion it isn't something that is dependent on a person at all
So would I be right to assume it falls under being "simply part of the process for existence" wherein the actions of the individual are given no merit?

I'm afraid I don't know your religion but I am curious how it functions from the perspective of your belief.

>>14550
In my opinion people and souls are all just God's toys, Elijah was reincarnated in the Bible but not for himself, just because God wanted to play with him and Israel.

He was mentioned as coming before the Messiah by the last written prophet before Jesus Himself came. God did this to test the hearts of the people, something He mentions several times He will do. He even said at some point He planned to give powers and miracles to false religions to test them, it's something He enjoys.

"And I have chosen the furnace of affliction" to quote Him

There's no such thing as souls because it defies conservation of energy. This isn't a philosophical question, but a physical one. And physics says souls are fairy tales for gullible people so they keep giving their billionaire preachers more tithes.

>>14586
>There's no such thing as souls because it defies conservation of energy. This isn't a philosophical question, but a physical one.
You do realise the conservation of energy breaks down on closer inspection. We have to keep making up theories to fill the holes.

Dark Matter is to scientists what Souls are to the religious.

>>14587
#DarkSoulsMatter

>>14587
>conservation of energy breaks down on closer inspection
No it doesn't. Dark matter is the remainder of an unbalanced equation that physicists developed trying to describe how the universe works. Until proven the exist, it's no more pertinent than a chemistry student who fucked up his math and finds he should have ten more mL of acid in his precipitate than is actually there. And even if/when it is proven to exist, it would not change the implication of time's arrow which is generated from entropy.

>>14599
>Dark matter is the remainder of an unbalanced equation that physicists developed trying to describe how the universe works.
Exactly, it's not a proven thing and only exists as a theory to plug the holes in our current understanding. How is that any different to the soul?

Both exist as a theorised concept and neither has been proven, only surmised.

>>14600
There is no "hole" in our understanding of the universe that the soul fills or solves. It's a desperate hope of a mortal and unimportant creature that they are not so mortal and unimportant, the belief in which was leveraged and then exploited by the rich. The idea of a soul existing actually creates problems rather than solving them, because it runs counter to established science and even logic.

>>14602
>actually creates problems because it runs counter to established science and even logic.
So did dark matter when it was first theorised, it still does, hence the existence of modified Newtonian dynamics. The concept of dark matter until 100 years ago, and it's only gained traction in the last 50 years or so.

Just because the current scientific paradigm doesn't recognise life and by extension the spiritual dimension doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>14605
Okay, but that's literally just Russel's Teapot. There is zero evidence that it's there, but you're still going to claim that souls exist because we can't be SURE?

That's dumb.

>>14609
Russel's teapot is filled with a butt-hurt blend of dark matter and human souls...

>>14610
A more accurate description is to say Russels teapot is made from dark matter (and filled with souls) as it can't be detected by any means and only exists as a claim.

Of course, any scientist worth his salt, doesn't claim dark matter exists to begin with as it only exists in theory.

Dreams don't exist because this defies the physical concept of heat death I was taught in 3rd grade

thanks science, won another argument

File 162510814988.jpg - (326.84KB , 760x749 , Boltzmann Brain.jpg )

When someone mentions the soul, they are mentioning a device that has been sort it out between the present and past. Usually the dates are momentary to the construction of 1855-1901. In a way the soul relies in the past through evolutionary construct while the present it involves a certain lost generation dimensions that are usually given in the history of the 20th century with the beginning of the world at war like a tale of Conrad.

Here is a picture of theorized construct sort of like the soul but in the lost generation knowns athe Botlzmann Brain of humanity