• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

What is Immortality?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 05 September 2004 - 02:50 PM


It seems to me there is some confusion as to what the term immortality means. Just like with the terms nanotechnology and singularity there are different "opinions" to what is the right definition.

1. Immortality means unable to kill.
No matter what happens, nothing will kill you. You will always exist and can not be destroyed. Even if the universe was destroyed, you would still exist. Even if there where multiple universes and they where all destroyed, you would still live on.

2. Immortality means being able to live indefinitely or infinitely.
Given the right circumstances, you will be able to live indefinitely. Even though your body was destroyed, you would be able to reconstruct it. That is if you need a body to live. It would be possible to destroy you by taking away your "right circumstances".

3. Immortality means not dying from old age.
Only accidents and attacks can kill you.

What is the most common definition?
What is the right definition?
What definition would you give the term?
What is the official Immortality Institutes definition?

These may be idle questions, but I sometimes encounter people who questions my own definition of immortality ( which is number 2 above ) and I tend to agree with them that the real definition is number 1. Does it really make a difference?

I realize some of these questions has been answered throughout this forum on many different occasions. This is an attempt to gather all of these opinions in one place. If you think one or more of these questions has been answered in another thread, then please provide a link to it here.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Immortality

A Problem With The Word "immortality"?

#2 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 September 2004 - 04:27 PM

As some people have already indicated, I don’t think it’s necessary to find a general consensus within the relatively near future, although I’m not implying that this is your intention. One main reason is because consciousness means something different to different people and has various degrees of significance. For instance, the physicalist and materialist accounts of consciousness have not been reconciled. The physicalist holds that physical reality entails more than the material, consisting of epiphenomena that in principle elude the senses (such as qualia which cannot be observed by anyone other than the observer), while the materialist believes that physical reality is entirely phenomenal in principle.

The implication is that, to some people (such as me), there is something elusively special about consciousness and, therefore, physical immortality means to nondustructively maintain whatever it is that is essential to its persistence for as long as it volitionally opts. And to others, consciousness is fundamentally a quantitative system with much more flexibility in terms of significance (i.e., it is not as significant as the physicalist might find it) and, therefore, physical immortality means to preserve this system, minus the concern for “special” epiphenomena, also through all existential threats for an eternity or as long as volitionally desired. Either way, though, physical immortality is preserving a desired identity for as long as that particular identity, or the volitional agent for that identity, desires to be preserved.

Edited by Nate Barna, 06 September 2004 - 04:03 PM.


#3 lightowl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 05 September 2004 - 05:22 PM

You are right. It is not important to come to any consensus in the near future if at all. What is important is to realize that when people talk about immortality, they might not use the term in the same way as others. It is my intention with this thread to point out how different those definitions are.

Some people quite happily state that Immortality is impossible and that there is no point in pursuing it. That can induce a strong reaction from an "immortalist" like me until I realize that they think of immortality in a different way.

Thanks for pointing out the consciousness aspect of this. It is important to take in to consideration the state of being when talking about infinite being. :)

Be aware that the limited definitions I have stated above is not by any means the complete picture.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 September 2004 - 10:16 PM

I think I understand now what you might be looking for. I’ll try to give it a go then at a universal definition for physical immortality.
physical immortality: an attribute of an agent’s identity that, while the agent correctly assumes that absolute certainty can never exist, bestows indestructibility of the agent’s perceived essential requisites of being from all accessibly known existential threats
Although this is an extremely high standard, it’s about one level below the highest standard semantically possible which would consist of replacing “accessibly known” with “actual.” In my opinion, it will always be ridiculous to attempt the highest standard. Even in these earliest stages of immoralist pondering, we’ve identified enough existential threats that if we were physically immortal today according to the above definition, each willing agent could look forward to a lifespan of at least 10106 years and have that much time to identify and juke new existential threats.

#5 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 05 September 2004 - 11:08 PM

I think there's the "gold standard" of immortality, and then there's "practical" immortality. Practical depends to a certain extent on how long you've been alive. Obviously, if you've been alive for a billion years already, being "reasonably" sure that you'll live another million years is not immortality in a practical sense. However, for us mortals who are condemned without modern technology to live about 80 years, and perhaps 120 at best, a million years far exceeds a practical definition of immortality. Practically speaking, if you could reasonably ensure that you'll live another million years, then technology may make possible Nate's definition.

For me, *practical* immortality is A) conquering aging, and B) guaranteeing an extremely high survivability rate for common accidents and attacks, and a moderately high survival rate for uncommon accidents and attacks, and an at least greatly improved survivability rate for rare accidents and attacks. Attacks, I suppose, would include biological pathogens (disease), as well as attempted murder, non-genocidal war (inflict casualties, even if they don't kill), etc.

Car/plane/space accidents, falls of speeds up to and including terminal velocity, moderate fires, drowning, small explosions, involuntary amputations, decapitations, etc. I don't expect to survive a nuclear holocaust, but I expect to survive things that don't destroy my brain.

Once I've lived a few hundred years, practical immortality will begin to require greater and greater measures to ensure survivability. But as far as I'm concerned, it's all a matter of perspective.

Jay Fox

#6 Kallazze

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 September 2004 - 12:43 AM

I think Immortality means living forever, or not dying--ever. Hopefully, it'll start happening within 12 to 15 years or so. Then we'll start figuring out what to do in our vastly (or infinitely) extended lives (he he)!
Yes, we'll cure virtually every disease, take care of every injury (including spinal cord injury) using embryonic stem cells (legally, of course), start utilizing bionanomedicine, get very, very happy and start living forever!
Within hopefully 15 years!

#7 tous

  • Guest
  • 78 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:26 AM

Kallazze wow ur very optimistic. Infact thats the earliest Ive heard anyone say immortality would come. Perhaps we should think of a few names for these different difintions of Immortality?

For instance we could call

1. Immortality means unable to kill.
No matter what happens, nothing will kill you. You will always exist and can not be destroyed. Even if the universe was destroyed, you would still exist. Even if there where multiple universes and they where all destroyed, you would still live on.


"Uber Being Immortality"

And

2. Immortality means being able to live indefinitely or infinitely.
Given the right circumstances, you will be able to live indefinitely. Even though your body was destroyed, you would be able to reconstruct it. That is if you need a body to live. It would be possible to destroy you by taking away your "right circumstances".


could be called "Secular Conciousness Immortality"

And

3. Immortality means not dying from old age.
Only accidents and attacks can kill you.


could be called "Practical Biological Immortality"

Just a thought.

Personally when I refer to Immortallity I mean the third choice. Biological immortallity.

#8 lightowl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 21 September 2004 - 07:13 AM

It seems some people tend to assign a spiritual or supernatural meaning to the word. It is a problem for organizations like the Methuselah Foundation and probably also the Immortality Institute because people come to miss the essence of what we are seeking. It is a problem because we may be misinterpreted as being not very serious in our endeavors and the fact that we seek immortality through scientific exploration and development sometimes do not shine through.

In the relatively short time I have been writing in this forum, there has been quite a few supernatural immortality promoters. There is a debate going on Here about the same thing.

Some of you have suggested using a prefix on the word immortality to clarify its meaning. I am beginning to think that it might be the best way to avoid misinformation. It is hard to find a single word that describes our mission as good as immortality does.

So what might be the best alternative?

Scientific Immortality.
Physical Immortality.
Engineered Immortality.
Biological Immortality.
Practical Immortality.
etc...

or should we maybe make a definition system for every kind of immortality debated? After all, these prefixes can be as multiple as our imagination can envision ways to "cheat death" ;)

Reason also made some comments in the latest newsletter from The Longevity Meme.

#9 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 September 2004 - 01:52 PM

Hi lightowl, these are great suggestions. After reading Reason’s latest newsletter, i would begin leaning toward Biological Immortality. He’s an ultimate pragmatist who makes it clear that it becomes increasingly uncertain whether or not important goals are achieved – like immortality (in the real world where reference classes are accessible to anyone) – the more these goals become mostly goals of people whose thinking is generally regarded as excessively speculative (e.g., transhumanists, extropians, etc.).

Biology, in my opinion, is an affinitive type of subject most people can relate to immediately, while it is also a term that is unambiguous and not usually associated with anything religious or mystical. In some contexts, of course, like ImmInst, “immortality” is unambiguous because of its well-worded mission statement.

#10 123456

  • Guest
  • 295 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 September 2004 - 06:21 PM

To Tous;

You said;

"3. Immortality means not dying from old age.
Only accidents and attacks can kill you.


could be called "Practical Biological Immortality""


I do not completely agree, although that is the best definition for imortality in my opinion. Perhaps modifying it a bit saying;

"Immortality means not dying from old age(lack of proper Regeneration and Defences) which fights the damaging effects of radiation, oxidation, micro organisms ( Viruses, Bacterium, Fungi etc.). "

Well, it is good to try to be specific as much as possible. [pirate]

#11 tous

  • Guest
  • 78 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 October 2004 - 08:03 AM

123456, I was quoteing Lightowls original deferent defintion of immortallity. Not comming up with my own. But yes your right in that being as specific as possible won't hurt, but then we would have an infinite number of defintions wouldn't we.... after all theres alot of defferent ways you can die. These were broad defitions for an overall theme of immortallity.

#12 tessler

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • -1

Posted 28 October 2004 - 02:15 PM

In my opinon "immortality" is the wrong word because nothing is ethernal including the many Universes possibly the Cosmos. Unfortunately, I can not think of a better word though I prefer the expression "reincarnation of the scientific kind" when people can live, die and return by scientific means with the help of others. In my humble opinion there is far too much talk about preserving the body (hardware) rather than preserving the mind(software).

#13 yoktar

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 December 2004 - 06:36 PM

immortality is to be able to witness EVERYTHING. Such a person should know everything. He would even witness expansion and shrinking of universe without himself being perished. In a way he must be a part of this cycle. Probably this would not be able in any physical means. It is impossible to reach absolute immortality with traditional human senses or properties.

#14 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 23 December 2004 - 02:52 AM

Thor, interesting topic. Would you be interested in having this thread linked to the ImmInst homepage and move to ImmInst Member Articles?

#15 lightowl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 23 December 2004 - 03:44 AM

Sure Bruce, move and link as you please.

I don't really consider it an article, more like a reminder that immortality is a subjective term. I believe the question has been addressed many other places before here on ImmInst. Maybe you should collect the different threads on the subject and make a repost.

#16 lightowl

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 24 December 2004 - 06:09 AM

Here is another thread on the topic: http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=137&t=4785

#17 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 24 December 2004 - 07:14 AM

I am really humbled by such subtle thinking from the posters here.

Being a man in the street, I tend to be very concrete. Was Thomas Edison a trained theoretical scientist? I have to look up his biography, but I had always thought that he was just like me (self-adulation, I am sure, and my apologies), a man in the street, working on very concrete needs like lighting the streets at night.

The way I see it from the eye of eternity in the vast cosmos of the universe, everything has been done and recorded.

On that basis everything is eternal, including you and me, as records in the depths of the metaphysical oceans.

If we can put the records of you and me together and fashion a consciousness from them, then we are concretizing you and me from immortal or eternal dimensions to existence in time.

Allow me to refer you to my post in the corresponding thread by Aukaiman55, in Free Speech; look up the post there from Susmariosep: http://www.imminst.o...7&t=4785&hl=&s=

Susma

#18 bodebliss

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Cleveland,O

Posted 26 December 2004 - 11:06 AM

I would shy away, by nature, when talking about myself, from the term immortal( 'cause the word always sparks an image of me taking a nuke right in the chest with no effect ), and use the terms ' Eternal Life', or ' Eternal Health' which suits my aims. The term 'Eternal Health' seems to be what this organization, and most people would consider to be an achievable goal in this time frame. Maybe after that, 'Eternal Youth' would come into play as a replacement term as the technology advances, and that would be even more appetizing and poignant. I'd then wake up each morning to the sounds of Rod Stewart's song," Forever Young".

#19 scorpio311

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 March 2005 - 04:46 PM

I think Nature has done its part by giving us Immortal life its our turn now to find out the art of living for ever. up til now we have learnt the art of dieing through the culture of survival of species. the time has come that we should initiate a culture of survival of self... leading to the immortality...

#20 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 20 March 2005 - 04:10 PM

From what I've seen( replacement at molecular scale of human mind's substrate taking place, apparent nature of reality, etc.) it'd seem like one may very well continue to exist irregardless of the destruction of the body. But it's the information, the memories, the personality, that which is dear to one that is lost. One transitions from one state into another without willing it, one does not have the internal control of what awaits one. Given that, I believe Immortality to be the perpetual capacity to choose when and how one'd transition from a particular state of existence into another, a form of freedom if you will, freedom to choose what awaits one.

( 'cause the word always sparks an image of me taking a nuke right in the chest with no effect )


In a world made of concepts, of information. The way to achieve persistence, is to take the nature of the world into account. What can we do to protect information? We can extensively duplicate our data and use top-down, bottom-up error-correction/protective input in order to faithfully preserve it and safeguard it. The information is made more resistant to all forms of attack, this idea has been suggested by many by expousing the creation of copies/up-load. Provided you've proper redundancy, spacing, defensive means nukes cannot destroy this.

Another way would be to develop the information, to scale it up, to make the pattern more elaborate/extensive/distributed. This is my favorite method. The entity ceases to be simple, and its mind grows, it becomes distributed, with the backing of vast substrate, and continues to expand. As it continues to grow, it becomes ever more resistant to all forms of attack. Nuclear attacks are pretty useless against this, after a short while.

As for allowing individuals to enjoy extremely long/nigh indefinite lifespans, my views are quite simple. Man has shown incapable of withstanding the forces of cultural/mental entropy. Wars, genocide, famine, crime, etc, etc, etc are innevitable in a world governed by men. Increasing IQ alone(maybe after a certain very high threshold, but still we know not whether such alone would necessarily guarantee empathy in a human sense) seems not to suffice, given that there seems to exist high IQ individuals engulfed by zealotry, blind faith in ancient books filled with nonsense, and the like.

In order to guarantee human rights, and to ensure a long-term stable form of government, one that is just, and does not fall prey to corruption, active measures seem necessary. In other words in order for us to ensure that life is protected, and that long lifespans are possible we MUST ENSURE THAT an ADEQUATE GOVERNING FORCE IS PRESENT, one not subject to the whims of the corruptible or worse, corrupted. One capable of overseeing all nations, and managing resources as we expand into the stars. One backed by overwhelming force, enough to ensure, to guarantee human rights, to break any barrier that may stand in the way of this. This is, IMHO, of the UTMOST importance to those who cherish life and believe all should be free to enjoy it.(will elaborate further in subsequent IDEAL world multi-board/forum post, that's coming soon.).

PS A HINT at where I'm going, what I mean... We've seen throughout fantasy literature, though folklore, etc. People that are fair, people that are just, and graceful. Often have we not wandered? these people should they not be ruling these lands?!? In these worlds, countless presented to us, should it not be those who're wise, those who're intelligent, those who're caring that should be the voters and the constituents of the highest form of government.

Well, irregardless of local/internal gov.s of individual nations, which can be left for the citizens of such nations, a new nation can be created, an ideal one, backed by absolute military might, to oversee and to manage, to be what the U.N should have been. One that would take decisions above the nations of men.

We KNOW what the bounds of causality are, environmental and genetic influence. Thus we can bring about an IDEAL PEOPLE by giving them the right modifications/attributes... highly EMPATHIC, highly INTELLIGENT, HIGHLY INFORMED, people who're passive and caring by nature, who're not blinded by rage/fear, nigh immune to these, who are benevolent, who're graceful, who're beautiful, fey in nature. Individuals from any nation could join and become members of this ideal universal overseeing nation, simply by taking the necessary behavioral, informational, genetic, etc modifications. This nation would posses a TRUE DEMOCRACY, and individuals within would vote and would compose the final government above all others.

Outside of the ideal nation, other nations would be internally governed as they saw fit, provided they did not try and violate human rights. Colonies/territories could be assigned to groups with certain ideologies or certain modifications that may be persecuted or attacked by opposing parties in other nations, military protection given and their rights of free expression and life protected from fundamentalists/deathlists/terrorists/etc.

This is a general overview of the concept for an IDEAL world at present, subject to modification, and open to suggestions. For the world calls for change, and a new form of government is needed to ensure the rights of all.

#21 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 20 June 2005 - 04:27 PM

Weired, I recently find lots of old interesting topics I haven't seen. Maybe I was just too indolent to read in my second language anything longer than two lines lol [lol]

Well, I think the first option is pretty much not possible... We are after all simply energy system as part of the Universe, hence, the end of the universe mean the end of us too.

I think the third option is what we are currently working on, for the sake of having enough time to break the limitations of the second option.
If our information could not be destroyed but with in very rare situations (the end of the universe, black whole and opposed white one - - see theory mostlyHERE AND ETCETERA and HERE... etcetera), it would solve the second biggest problem in our lives.
The biggest one, heh we are still looking for a precise question, as we now call it the meaning of life, the universe and everything...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#22 icyT

  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 23 September 2005 - 11:12 AM

I think every person here can accept that the third definition is the more plausible and a better first goal to pursue initially, yes?

Once we have all the time in the world, we can then focus upon personal security so we can protect ourselves, long enough to become omnipotent.

I'm having a feeling that might take a while to figure out, 'sall I'm sayin'.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users