54 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

How does being immune to genetic death or additionally to all disease make it easier to finally face material death?

By living longer and smarter we will be able to overcome or find solution(s) to the obstructions that prevent us for living even longer. If what you say is unavoidable, living, let say, 4 billions years should just about satisfy our thirst to live forever. I'll be happy at this point to live only 4 billions years.

You know, maybe even 3 billion would be enough. I'm not too greedy. (not that I want to rule out 4, 5 and 6...but I think 3 might stil be an acceptable minimum)

[struct]

just 3 billions!? hhmm!
Honestly I would not complain if I live only just 3.8 billions but not 3 billions! That's pushing it too low. I guess you have low standard Aegist.

[Aegist]

..well, I don't want to set my expectations too high. What if I don't acheive them?
[tung]

[struct]

you are right. I'll lower mine to:
3 billions 735 millions 982 thousands and 743 years.

see you around for at least 3 billions years!

[halcyondays]

How is it any less quackery than religious people? Religion is about living forever after all. If that weren't the case we would all be atheists because who wants to follow a belief system when you get no reward at the end, right? We just remove god from the equation.

I personally don't know if it's possible to live forever, but we will at least be able to live for hundred of billions of years with luck and the right technology and if we haven't come up with some solution to death by that point then I guess we won't live forever, and I'm sure that billions of years seems like a long time until you reach the day before you die and then you want to live just one more year.

[Aegist]

How is it any less quackery than religious people? Religion is about living forever after all. If that weren't the case we would all be atheists because who wants to follow a belief system when you get no reward at the end, right? We just remove god from the equation.

No. It is very very different.

One is an absolute belief, the other is questing after an ideal.

i do not believe that I am immortal. I strive to achieve it. Huge difference. One is delusional, the other is optimistic at worst.

[halcyondays]

How is it any less quackery than religious people? Religion is about living forever after all. If that weren't the case we would all be atheists because who wants to follow a belief system when you get no reward at the end, right? We just remove god from the equation.

No. It is very very different.

One is an absolute belief, the other is questing after an ideal.

i do not believe that I am immortal. I strive to achieve it. Huge difference. One is delusional, the other is optimistic at worst.

My point is that religious people think that it's ridiculous fantasy to believe we will develop technology to live forever and yet they believe in some imaginary being that created everything and will make you live on after you die. This is in spite of all physical evidence to the contrary. Religion is far more quackery than transhumanism.

[stephenszpak]

Liveforever wrote> "religion" if (of? sp.) the Institute?

We are all about extending human lifespans, that is the whole point of what draws us together. Some people think different things are more important than others, but I doubt very many would consider it a "religion".

Stephen wrote> I could have said cult. I don't know, maybe it's like some
Catholics believe everything the Pope says and others don't.
Maybe most of you all, just want longevity.
Maybe a minority actually think there might be some way
some how to live forever.


It is all quite interesting to me really. That is the twisting of
Christianity in your way here. Sort of like a upside down
mirror image.

In Christianity one lives one's life for Christ with the promise
of being raised up on the last day. (1)

In this religion the belief is to find a way to never die.
There is no science here, but promises. No one here
can survive any of the common ways people die. So
there has to be faith. Faith in science. Faith that somehow
(in a way unknown) the mortal shall become immortal.

Another inversion is self-sacrifice. In Christianity, a Christian
brother is commanded to love his follow brothers. One can't
have greater love than laying down one's life for his Christian
friends. (2)


A ture immortalist would never die willingly for someone else.
I'm sure a number of people here would do so. However this
would be a final act of renunciation.


Final note: Beware of the "us against them" attitude all cults have.



===============================================
(1) Gospel of John Chapter 6 verse 40

http://www.biblegate...er=6&version=49
===============================================

(2) Gospel of John Chapter 15 verses 12 and 13

http://www.biblegate...r=15&version=49
===============================================

[bgwowk]

A true immortalist would never die willingly for someone else.
I'm sure a number of people here would do so. However this
would be a final act of renunciation.

Nonsense. The decision to risk or even lose one's life to save another life can be the result of a purely logical decision that you would not wish to continue living knowing what you could have prevented.

In a thread that asks whether Immortalists are quacks, it is very appropriate to ask whether Immortalism is to be the eminently reasonable position that people shouldn't get sick and die against their wishes (with the attendant implication of indefinite lifespans), or whether "Immortalism" is to mean some bizarre my-life-at-all-costs doctrine that is incompatible with common sense if not basic humanity. I submit that the latter course is highly counterproductive, even to one's own survival interests.

Final note: Beware of the "us against them" attitude all cults have.

Indeed. Find ways to better connect with common sensibilities, even religion, not repudiate them in the context of Immortalism.

[DJS]

roidjoe:
Existence

The idea of living forever, of being attached to your ego - and not being free as in, death is just boundless existence and life is, perhaps, as the bible says - suffering.  You do realize that your matter, ie. the energy that encompasses yourself, is infinite and will exist forever and has existed before and will exist in the future.  You are not going anywhere.  You are the universe, itself, and there is no separation of yourself from it.  Now, why would anyone want their ego to be bound to their bodies for eternity?  It is, indeed, perhaps some sort of a mental illness.  Considering the average person does not think of these things, consciously, we cannot rule out that this knowledge does not exist in their subconscious - and most certainly I believe is does.  They realize they are not masters of life and that there exists existence beyond death, but we, as "Immortalists" do not accept that and strive to the heights of perfection and to the ultimate lonely desire, immortality.  What you don't realize is that you are immortal, already.   Now, sure, the highly gifted individuals will realize that the average person is nothing but a fool and will strive to better himself as much as possible.  Thus being said, improving your lot and trying to avoid the inevitable are hardly akin.

It's just the cycle of existence.

This post has a buddhistic flavor to it (with the standard devaluation of self).

Either consciously or subconsciously, you are making certain ontological commitments. There is the possibility that Being is somehow preserved in a mind/matter matrix of reality, but there is also the possibility that it is not. However even if it were preserved, this doesn't provide us with a rational for not striving towards greater levels of Being.

Personally, I do have a high level of confidence that death represents a cessation of the process of Being. I have no reason to believe in an after life of any kind. Yet this belief, although prevalent amongst Immortalists, is by no means neccesary in order to support the Immortalist agenda. All that is required is a desire to exceed the normal biological parameters of the *human life span* that are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of evolutionary forces, and to seek out rational scientific solutions in addressing this desire.

Immortalism is all about providing people with more choices and greater levels of freedom. Individuals should have the choice of how long they want to live, whether it be for 70 years, 7000 years or indefinitely.

Finally, I've noticed a general pattern among spiritualist whereby they claim to have a conclusive level of knowledge on matters which I still view as overwhelmingly speculative. Perhaps Immortalists are too intellectually honest with themselves for this sort of self deception. I can tell you that my main personal motivation for indefinitely extending my life span is to answer these questions of deeper meaning with a much higher level of confidence. Indeed, the journey may involve currently unimaginable levels of joy and suffering, but that is precisely what life is all about. It takes a truly courageous spirit to say yes to such an undertaking.

[DJS]

oh no, there are very heavy and violent debates in philosophy between the diffrence between ethics and morlas. i think its a pretty abartory destinction personally. And a lot of good time has been wasted defining each.

id prefer the time be spent actaully giving some kind of restriction to the definition of mind, personally.

ooo no, I think the ethics/morality distinction is an important one. Most debates that take place on the subject are meta-level, ie on whether such a distinction should exist in the first place. Ethics addresses what is "for the good" of society as a whole, in contrast to morality which concerns what is good for one personally. Think of secular philosophers (say Struassians) who argue that society needs religion to continue to functioning properly.


Edit: YEAY!! I just hit the big 5000!!!

[roidjoe]

roidjoe:
Existence

The idea of living forever, of being attached to your ego - and not being free as in, death is just boundless existence and life is, perhaps, as the bible says - suffering.  You do realize that your matter, ie. the energy that encompasses yourself, is infinite and will exist forever and has existed before and will exist in the future.  You are not going anywhere.  You are the universe, itself, and there is no separation of yourself from it.  Now, why would anyone want their ego to be bound to their bodies for eternity?  It is, indeed, perhaps some sort of a mental illness.  Considering the average person does not think of these things, consciously, we cannot rule out that this knowledge does not exist in their subconscious - and most certainly I believe is does.  They realize they are not masters of life and that there exists existence beyond death, but we, as "Immortalists" do not accept that and strive to the heights of perfection and to the ultimate lonely desire, immortality.  What you don't realize is that you are immortal, already.   Now, sure, the highly gifted individuals will realize that the average person is nothing but a fool and will strive to better himself as much as possible.  Thus being said, improving your lot and trying to avoid the inevitable are hardly akin.

It's just the cycle of existence.

This post has a buddhistic flavor to it (with the standard devaluation of self).

Either consciously or subconsciously, you are making certain ontological commitments. There is the possibility that Being is somehow preserved in a mind/matter matrix of reality, but there is also the possibility that it is not. However even if it were preserved, this doesn't provide us with a rational for not striving towards greater levels of Being.

Personally, I do have a high level of confidence that death represents a cessation of the process of Being. I have no reason to believe in an after life of any kind. Yet this belief, although prevalent amongst Immortalists, is by no means neccesary in order to support the Immortalist agenda. All that is required is a desire to exceed the normal biological parameters of the *human life span* that are nothing more than an incidental byproduct of evolutionary forces, and to seek out rational scientific solutions in addressing this desire.

Immortalism is all about providing people with more choices and greater levels of freedom. Individuals should have the choice of how long they want to live, whether it be for 70 years, 7000 years or indefinitely.

Finally, I've noticed a general pattern among spiritualist whereby they claim to have a conclusive level of knowledge on matters which I still view as overwhelmingly speculative. Perhaps Immortalists are too intellectually honest with themselves for this sort of self deception. I can tell you that my main personal motivation for indefinitely extending my life span is to answer these questions of deeper meaning with a much higher level of confidence. Indeed, the journey may involve currently unimaginable levels of joy and suffering, but that is precisely what life is all about. It takes a truly courageous spirit to say yes to such an undertaking.

These questions have been answered through the history of mankind. We, as a people, are not evolving a genome that is selective of intellect, rather though, a genome selective of reproduction. Intelligent people reproduce less than their lower IQ counterparts - which causes a problem. If we are to look back into history we can presume that generations previous to ours were not limited by this aura of knowledge we cloak ourselves in, and that, in fact, they were genetically more intelligent than us. An example of this, and perhaps the most obvious to well read people, are the ancient greek philosophers. What we can also assume is that they had access to similar natural compounds that we do, today, that are still the most potent, enlightening, substances on earth. Thus while it seems we may be progressing to further answer any questions we have, the reality, is, quite the contrary. The abundance of misinformation is causing the collective conscious to deceive the masses, which, indirectly, affects every individual on earth.

[DJS]

roidjoe: These questions have been answered through the history of mankind.

No, "these questions" have been asked but they have not been answered. There may also be additional questions which we do not yet have the capacity to formulate.

We, as a people, are not evolving a genome that is selective of intellect, rather though, a genome selective of reproduction. Intelligent people reproduce less than their lower IQ counterparts - which causes a problem. If we are to look back into history we can presume that generations previous to ours were not limited by this aura of knowledge we cloak ourselves in, and that, in fact, they were genetically more intelligent than us.  An example of this, and perhaps the most obvious to well read people, are the ancient greek philosophers.

LOL, you should watch the movie Idiocracy. [lol] You would get a kick out of it.

You are employing the *throw sh-t at wall* method. Unfortunately none of it is sticking. Perhaps if I have time later today I can dissect your argument piece by piece and demonstrate to you why you are fundamentally wrong on a number of levels.

[RighteousReason]

generations previous to ours were not limited by this aura of knowledge we cloak ourselves in, and that, in fact, they were genetically more intelligent than us.  An example of this, and perhaps the most obvious to well read people, are the ancient greek philosophers.

[pirate]

[stephenszpak]

A true immortalist would never die willingly for someone else.
I'm sure a number of people here would do so. However this
would be a final act of renunciation.

Nonsense. The decision to risk or even lose one's life to save another life can be the result of a purely logical decision that you would not wish to continue living knowing what you could have prevented.

In a thread that asks whether Immortalists are quacks, it is very appropriate to ask whether Immortalism is to be the eminently reasonable position that people shouldn't get sick and die against their wishes (with the attendant implication of indefinite lifespans), or whether "Immortalism" is to mean some bizarre my-life-at-all-costs doctrine that is incompatible with common sense if not basic humanity. I submit that the latter course is highly counterproductive, even to one's own survival interests.

Final note: Beware of the "us against them" attitude all cults have.

Indeed. Find ways to better connect with common sensibilities, even religion, not repudiate them in the context of Immortalism.

People have said to me on other threads that there is no evidence of God's existense, therefore it is
irrational to believe in God and that He will raise me up on the last day.

Well there ain't no immortalism. There is no evidence of it. Why do people here believe in it?
Is it not irrational? If this is common sense stuff, like putting on snow tires when winter comes,
then the general public would embrace all this. But they don't.

-Stephen

[JohnDoe1234]

Stephenszpak, I was shocked at the lack of thought that was put into your last post here.

People have said to me on other threads that there is no evidence of God's existense, therefore it is
irrational to believe in God and that He will raise me up on the last day.

I think that you are misunderstanding what they are meaning, just because something cannot be directly observed doesn’t mean that it is irrational to believe in it. Even though I cannot see the people reading this message, I am assuming that people are reading it. Now, there is a difference between rational belief and irrational belief. Rational belief is based on something that is likely to happen, something that was observed to have happened in the past, or something that would seem to follow a pattern. Irrational belief is based on a person's desires, and only relies on coincidence. Sure, you can say that rational belief is only a bunch of coincidences... but the thing is, these coincidences happen 100% of the time.

If this is common sense stuff, like putting on snow tires when winter comes,then the general public would embrace all this. But they don't.

I hate to beat dead horses but... this warrants another session... Common People Embrace Lots Of Stupid Stuff!! (Witchcraft, A Flat Earth, Sun gods) With either of these little beliefs there was a time where pretty much everyone in the world believed them to be true. There is no basis for their truth, but people still liked them because they were convenient (either for their agenda, or to explain something that they were unable to comprehend).

I hope for your sake that you choose to you your head and not simply go along with something because it is what the majority of people think, you must take an active role in investigating things, don't just assume that because only a small number of people believe in something that it is wrong. Take Galileo for instance.

Well there ain't no immortalism. There is no evidence of it.

Cancer Cells. That is why they are so bad! they keep replicating and taking up space (this is what is called a tumor).

[stephenszpak]

josephjah

josephjah wrote> I think that you are misunderstanding what they are meaning, just because something cannot be directly observed doesn’t mean that it is irrational to believe in it. Even though I cannot see the people reading this message, I am assuming that people are reading it. Now, there is a difference between rational belief and irrational belief. Rational belief is based on something that is likely to happen, something that was observed to have happened in the past, or something that would seem to follow a pattern.

Stephen wrote> Isn't death in each generation of humans a pattern?
In the Bible there are two men I know of that didn't die.
These are old Testament references. Everyone else since
the beginning has died. Those that don't believe in the Bible
will say that everyone that has lived has died (up until the
current time, but even that is true for each current time,
so to speak).

When I think of the word immortal I think of indestructible.
To transform from mortal to immortal one must accomplish
this transformation. Has anyone done this? No. Is anyone
close? No.




josephjah wrote > Cancer Cells. That is why they are so bad! they keep replicating and taking up space (this is what is called a tumor).

Stephen wrote> Cancer cells can be destroyed. Humans can be murdered. For immortalism to exist
murder can not.

-Stephen

[JohnDoe1234]

Isn't death in each generation of humans a pattern?
In the Bible there are two men I know of that didn't die.
These are old Testament references. Everyone else since
the beginning has died

Oh come on... You don't know that! you believe that! Like I have said to numerous other religious individuals, Don't say things that you cannot back up!

When I think of the word immortal I think of indestructible.

That isn't all that can be meant by the word. I would never make the mistake of saying that something is indestructible... you shouldn't limit your interpretation of the word to that alone. That concept is popularized by pop culture, sure it would be nice to be invulnerable... so, why don't we just use the words "indefinite life-spans"? works for me...

Cancer cells can be destroyed. Humans can be murdered. For immortalism to exist
murder can not.

Again, I think that there is a semantic-compatibility issue here. I think that you are taking the pop-culture definition too seriously here.

When I say that I want to be immortal, I say that I would like to be able to live as long as I please and still maintain control of the death-switch. Just because something has the potential to die doesn't mean that it doesn’t have the potential to be immortal.

yes, cancer cells can be destroyed, but you are missing the point. Under their ideal environment, they are in fact immortal (At least some)

[stephenszpak]

josephjah

Stephen wrote>

Since you believe that everyone that has lived has died (except in our
current time) then there is all the more reason for you to believe you
and everyone living on Earth today will die. To me, this would be rational.
Therefore the belief in immortalism would be irrational.

josephjah wrote> That isn't all that can be meant by the word. I would never make the mistake of saying that something is indestructible... you shouldn't limit your interpretation of the word to that alone. That concept is popularized by pop culture, sure it would be nice to be invulnerable... so, why don't we just use the words "indefinite life-spans"? works for me...

Stephen wrote> If "indefinite life-spans" means to you, an unknown amount of time
that might just be forever, then you must believe you have a
shot at becoming an immortal. If you just mean an unknown, finite amount of
time, then you believe the same as just about everyone else on the planet.

Some people must believe they have a shot at living forever:

Immortality Institute - Advocacy and Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Notice the words "Unlimited Lifespans". Living forever and ever.

====================================================================

They, of course, do tend to regard death as the prime evil and survival as the greatest good. But that is because we have taught them to do so.

Screwtape Letter XXVIII


-Stephen

[Athanasios]

If "indefinite life-spans" means to you, an unknown amount of time
                        that might just be forever, then you must believe you have a
                        shot at becoming an immortal. If you just mean an unknown, finite amount of
                        time, then you believe the same as just about everyone else on the planet.

                        Some  people must believe they have a shot at living forever:

Immortality Institute - Advocacy and Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Notice the words "Unlimited Lifespans". Living forever and ever.

Please do not repost the same argument over and over in other threads as well as this one. Either move on in your argument or you will be subject to moderation, this is a warning. This is the response, I have given, that you have ignored in this and other threads, to just repost the same statements again:

It is about living a long and productive life. The 'living forever' and 'Immortality' part is about not self-imposing limits on our lives, our nature, our humanity, and our possibilities.

Living forever may not be possible, but it is something to shoot for. It is about always looking to improve the human situation. It emphasizes how much we value life and humanity. It is a symbol saying that it is a continual process. Unfortunately, many people do not understand why we should 'reach for the stars' (which is a saying for reaching for the infinite).

Like infinity in mathematics, our goal is for 100 years, then 150, then 200, then so on to 'infinity'. The point is that it is a continual goal. We want it open-ended.

Edit: Changed 'please do' to 'please do not' Oops [tung]

Edited by cnorwood, 21 March 2007 - 08:01 PM.

[JohnDoe1234]

I don't mean to post over you Chris (if you know what I mean)... But Stephen (mind if I call you by your name?) if you are willing to abide by what Chris said, than I would like to continue this little debate here...

Since you believe that everyone that has lived has died (except in our
current time) then there is all the more reason for you to believe you
and everyone living on Earth today will die. To me, this would be rational.
Therefore the belief in immortalism would be irrational.

Yes, you are exactly right, that is very rational to think that, but given the rate at which our knowledge of our bodies and physics is growing, I think that it is also very rational to think that some people here (the ones who are fairly young now, and that take very good care of their bodies) will have an opportunity to live an Unlimited life.

Notice the words "Unlimited Lifespans". Living forever and ever.

"Unlimited" does not mean "living forever and ever" as you put it. It means that our lives do not have limits other than what we wish to place on them ourselves. that is completely different.

[Athanasios]

I don't mean to post over you Chris (if you know what I mean)...

Yep, please continue!

"Unlimited" does not mean "living forever and ever" as you put it. It means that our lives do not have limits other than what we wish to place on them ourselves. that is completely different.

Yes, this has been what the consensus has been when the name and slogan has been brought up, and voted on, in the full member forums. The reason some expressed wanting it, even though there may be many misconceptions, is that anything else that has been suggested had a weaker connotation that would result in a diluting effect of our mission. If you are a full member, there is a thread available for suggesting alternative names and slogans. There has been quite a lot of thought put into what exists now.

[JohnDoe1234]

Yeah, I remember reading through a few posts in that thread a couple of weeks ago, Personally I like where it is at currently, as the organization grows and we begin to expand, it will matter less and less what our name is, but rather how we conduct ourselves, Which is why I was so adamant that we remove that Raelian crap that was brought up the other day... we just have to make sure that we keep as serious of a tone in our discussions as we can, and not let fanatics with no mental defenses hijack our forums.... but anyway...

Maybe like Aegist is suggesting we create a nice little newbie FAQ, we should clearly define what is meant by words like Immortal, Unlimited, Extended... etc that way there won't be any sort of confusion.

Anyone who wants to recover this thread, go for it! (if we can keep a thread like this from de-railing)... but I just couldn't stand by while Stephen said ridiculous stuff like that.

[cyborgdreamer]

                        In this religion the belief is to find a way to never die.
                        There is no science here, but promises. No one here
                        can survive any of the common ways people die. So
                        there has to be faith. Faith in science. Faith that somehow
                        (in  a way unknown) the mortal shall become immortal.

I think immortalism is more about hope than faith. I certainly hope that science will find a way to help people live forever, but I don't have faith in anything. Faith means believing in something without logical evidence, which is totally irrational. I'm fully aware that technology may not be able to keep up with the decay of the human body but there is also a significant chance that we will be able to extend the lifespan. Therefore, even without faith, we can still hope for sucess.

[luv2increase]

If even we never find a way to live forever, I'm sure that doubling or possibly tripling our lifespans will be possible.