Forums » Smalltalk » Eternal Life -Or- Mortality

"Immortal" does not mean "all-powerful" nor having the capacity to be "all-knowing." Humanity would die off long before I could manage to get even a reasonable amount of control over the populous, and that's after probably spreading faster than I could ever keep up with. See every empire ever.

but what I am saying is, given that you have unlimited time you could figure out how to make yourself all-powerful
you could fly, be super strong, shoot lasers, whatever you want its just how much time your willing to take to figure out how to make it real. And in theory, you could become near all knowing, besides the obvious stuff you wouldn't be able to know, given infinite time you could learn and research every topic and subject EVER, giving you near all knowingness

In theorywhich assumes perfect circumstance and knowing life it's possible to fail. first of all you can still get hurt and dismembered, sure it wouldn't be problem if you lost one arm but if you lost legs? I'm sure you could forget about your super powers and all knowingness by then.
Second Factor- Ageing, after some period the neuro-plasticity wouldn't be as good as before which could impact ability to learn and remember things, why do you think elderly forget about thing? that's because their neuro-plasticity.
3rd factor- Getting caught by scientist and being experimented on, I'm pretty sure your mind wouldn't be like before or your body. Yeah you can avoid that by changing locations & identity, the possibility still exists.
I'm sure you could refute my statements but I'm operating on the info I've received from you.

Now onto answering your question eternal life or mortality.
While Immortality is interesting idea to experiment on, it is also great misery.
I would definitely chose mortality, however I'm more interested in reincarnation not as animal or any otherworldly being but as a different human, it has it pros and cons but it's pretty interesting idea.

I can only know that which I am able to learn and retain (brain has limited capacity, memories change every time they are accessed, and different brains feature different comprehensions that predispose them to certain types of knowledge while making others very difficult to process at all), and can only do that which could be found to be possible. If something is impossible, no amount of time will enable me to do it.

It's true that we do not presently know what all may be possible, but I promise you it is both far beyond and much less than what we might imagine.

while you have a point with #3 I don't see the issue with #1 and #2 as the kind of immortality would grant you invisibility, therefore, no aging, basically, your body doesn't die the cells don't die, so the numbers placidity wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps I should have been more clear about the kind of immortality you would receive

I would have two questions...

Can my wife take a bite, too?
Will the immortality be hereditary (passed on to our children)?

If those both are true, then yes, I'd take a bite.
If either of them are not, then no.

Sadly no to number 1, but number 2 is something I have not considered. I think if the universe is self aware the way I think it is, it will try to combat the fact that an immortal being exists because it defies death, one of the major factors of life, the very thing that gives life meaning. So you might just get magically neutered and not be able to have kids at all

Then no way.

A thing that occurs to me.

You're saying immortal and invincible. (At least, I assume you meant invincible.) You specifically say cells don't age or die. Going to have to extrapolate and say, to be invincible, that cells cannot even be damaged. All parts of your body are the toughest, most resilient substances.

No cuts or bruises. No broken bones. No tattoos.

If there is no damage and no aging, it could be assumed that there is no change. There is no development.

You could never get stronger. (Building muscle involves working existing ones to the point of microdamage.) And you could never learn anything new, because your neurons cannot change and cannot do anything to make space for new ones, nor destroy existing brain pathways to form new ones. There is no growth or development, there is only permanent stasis, remaining forever exactly as you were when you ate the apple.

Unless perhaps you were to change focus to regeneration which can outpace damage, but then you have to deal with the question: if cut perfectly in half, do both halves reform, much like many simpler organisms do, providing the capacity for a universe full of many yous?

and with that ladies and gentlemen, the fun has been ruined

Great points though, you may have converted me over to the mortality choice with this one

I recall a quote that stood out to me when the rest of the book did not: "Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything."

but doesn't that mean I can eventually disprove your disprov[ation] of my idea?

Means it's possible, yes.

The main issue you introduced were too many specifications, though. The tighter rules get, the easier it is to just shatter the whole concept. *shrugs*

Dam, your right. So, in reality, I should have kept it open instead of closing the specifications

I feel I should have gone with the constant regeneration immortality, not the invisible immortality

You keep saying "invisible" when you mean "invincible." Try "invulnerable" instead? Next time you need the concept, I mean.

I've used regenerative types, though. Usually still limited, so they aren't completely unkillable, but it can be an interesting thing to play around with. For that matter, so can being incapable of growth or change, depending on what you're doing with it.

This has been very enlightening to read

*Quietly downloading that me-me*

Thank you for teaching me something new

that was the goal Questions like these always spark debates which sometimes causes people to learn something new or even completely change there view, like meeee

Divine immortality, naturally. Not the finicky scientific biological immortality, which comes loaded with awkward and lawyerish questions about brain capacity and dismemberment and cellular regeneraton and irradiation and what-not. To hell with all that noise. Perfect sempiternal existence.

As for people whinging about how sad it would be to lose loved ones and witness the worst of humanity and so-on, well, what a pity they can't see beyond their immediate circumstances.

It's better to detach oneself from transient things, or else one becomes an object in the world at the mercy of its circumstances. If you chain yourself too intimately to this one objective definition of yourself, then you become dependent on that definition, and if the world takes away the thing you define yourself by (the devout who loses faith) or prevents you from being that thing anymore (the artist with broken hands), then you won't survive the loss; the chains you forge for yourself will drag you down with them. Unless you wear those chains lightly. Don't say, I am a mother, I am a brother, I am an artist, I am a quaker, I am a capitalist. Say instead, I am myself, whatever that happens to be at any given moment. I am doing this thing or being this thing for now, but I am free to shed that obsolete value system when it becomes inconvenient to me. I am flexible, I am free to be something else when I decide to be. Thus all things become possible.

Losing people you love is sad, but you'll get over it. Eventually you'll start to see people in terms of generations and cultures, not individuals. Humans come and go, but humanity goes on for an awfully long time, and just seeing what they get up to next is well worth sticking around. Even then, there's always something else to be interested in. In a universe as fascinating as this, it's truly flabbergasting that we have managed to invent boredom.

And just like that Im back to the side of eternal life, you worded this perfectly Pooka