next »

[Birth]

To Shinichi, :]

To Marius, to be honest with you I believe Science, Magick, and Spiritualism are all connected. I just made this post to see what you guys thought of it, while trying my best to take out Magick and Spiritualism. Shinichi plainly stated what I was expecting to hear; the reason why I made this thread in the first place.

You should look up HeLa cells.

By the way, you all make great points.

[jimbo]

Interesting posts, and opinions here.

I don't think that everything is designed to die, I believe that once we are over the age where in the past (when life expectancies were shorter) we would have stopped reproducing, there is little biological need for us to carry on living. This is evident in many things, but most especially animal life. Plant life, however, often acts differently; there are plants that have lived for thousands of years. Immortality for them, certainly, does not seem unobtainable.

For more complex organisms, there are both scientific and spritual ways of extending life. Life expectancy has risen much over the past hundred years, and may well continue to rise. My own fears are that, our economic system will not allow the development or availability of life extension technologies, and, that any widely available technology would further fuel a system that does not encourage spritiual development and exploration.

Strengthening the biological systems that degrade/cause ageing and natural death does not mean giving up on being human, any more than eating well and exercising doesn't mean we are less human than those that lived in the squalor of the 1400's. Nor does it necessarily mean grafting machines into our bodies. Our bodies, in the sense we're talking about here, are physical and chemical systems, more complex than a car or computer, but they are repaired and have replacements made. One of the current aims of drug companies is to be able to tailor medical treatments/ drugs for the individual and they're spending big money on it. If that is possible, then it certainly seems as if immortality may be possible without being aggressive with our bodies, and so not making changes or taking actions that would have psychological consequences and so perhaps threaten the mental aspect of what it means to be human. We could be secure.

I loved your post, Birth, it's an interesting notion. As you state, eventually everything physical will die, when protons decay and the universe goes dark, or when and if the next universe begins... as long as no technology is around to allow anything to survive.

It's an interesting philosophical area; one that seems to require so many qualifications for each statement, and it's certainly hard not to use assumptions that could be disproved in the future. We could go round in circles, and perhaps we do 

I think that spiritual immortality is also interesting, but I don't want to derail your thread, Birth... there's more than enough to be getting on with that was raised by your original post

[flamedancer]

"Physical Immortality to all living organisms on Earth is an unattainable endowment for the fact that this unique characteristic defies the very law of the earth which is Death. " -Birth

My reasoning for proposing this idea is basically physical immortality means you will have life forever. This Earth is designed for things to die, which is why we have Fungus to take care of the matter when the physical organism has passed. This goes for everything from larvae to Redwood trees, no matter the scale things will die and organisms on the Earth are here to make sure they turn into nutrients, or whatever the end result may be. Immortality defies lifes most basic cycle which is Birth, Sleep and Death. Birth is creation, Sleep is (not necessarily sleep) living/progress, and Death is passing. I don't know how celestial organisms work, but the laws of the Earth are Birth, Sleep, and Death and can be applied to everything; even something such as business.

The problem that I see with this is that we are giving life and death an intrinsic value which is based upon the arbitrary assumption that the proposed presumptions are true when this may or may not be the case. So, instead of going with arbitrary axioms based on what we may or may not know, let us go with what we know about life and death.

So, the question is how do we define death? The concept of death can  be associated with the irreversible termination of biological processes to sustain an organism, which is important because some biological processes can undergo changes which disturb its biological functions; however, they are able to resume such biological functions when the perturbing or destabilizing force is removed. For example, some proteins experience denaturation due to an environmental force exerting an influence on which causes it to lose its molecular shape, but in some cases this can be reversed. This is important, because we now have things that can be reversed and things that can be not reversed, but this implies a particular direction where things can only go forward or things to go backwards and forwards which especially holds true for concepts of life and death, for if the halted biological functions can be resumed, was the organism ever really dead to begin with?    

That being said, we can model time in the form of a fork where you have an asymmetry between the forks that we can think of cause and effect versus a symmetry between the forks involved where cause and effect are equal in their relationship to one another, but fundamental physical laws are symmetrical meaning that they are time blind; therefore, they should be no irreversible processes (classically speaking), but death is irreversible, so we know that is not the case. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy or chaos in a system can only increase and not decrease.

Moving away from that, for a second, let us look at what life is. Life can be defined as a self sustained chemical reaction that has a high degree of order, structure, and assembly where you have to have enough energy to facilitate the essential chemical reactions and processes without having them destroyed in the process. Life is basically energy, but the work energy can do is inversely proportional to the entropy in the system and the entropy in a system can only increase and not decrease, which works against the order and complexity that is life. The problem with discussing life is that it is seen as a homogeneous and static phase when that is not the case. It is a heterogeneous and dynamic entity catenated in both time and space where various chemical reactions create multiple paralleling compartments, processes, signals, etc. spanning various varying levels of time. As such, when one thing disturbs something, it is brought into homeostasis or dampened via some restoring force. In this, life is able to maintain itself even when entropic forces are in play.        

Edit: Furthermore, if immortality was possible there would be no need for reproduction, so those organs we have now wouldn't exist in a world with natural immortality.

As I said earlier, life is energy, but where does this energy come from and is it finite? Energy required to drive life can be traced to geothermic, meteorological, or solar sources where how it is distributed along the surface of the Earth in accessible forms is finite, thus, any expression of life is dealing with a finite amount of resources in which to sustain itself which turns into it expressing itself in ways that make it more fit so that it can get these resources. In this, the evolution of organs is not so remain mortal; rather, it is get as much energy as it can in pools of finite accessible energy.  

When dealing with psychokinesis, you are dealing with the skewing of possible histories in which a history can be called a mathematical function which deals with the trajectory or path of energy within a certain interval of time, but since it manipulates what could happen where the desired outcome is what happens instead of what would have happened without the intention of the person, it manipulates multiple histories where the alternative one is the only one that happens thereby resulting in the established trajectory of that energy, but in doing so, it goes against our concepts of the arrow of time, because it manipulates information describing the initial conditions for that thing be affected. That being said, manipulation of biological processes via psychokinesis would skew the future state of the biological organism being affected independently of its present state since information describing the what it will be in future moments is manipulated, so if a cell is aged, it is possible to redefine that aged cell as new young cell making it so that it is possible to reverse aged cells to younger cells. When dealing with the idea of multiple histories, the sum of probable trajectories and thus ways for energy to be pulled from about anywhere is infinite with whichever one being chosen is tied to the associated/correlated state, so energy amounts in the present environment is not an issue since psi seems to have transtemporal and transpatial properties.  Now, I am not saying immortality is possible or impossible. It is worth noting that the thing skewing histories would have to do so while remaining unentangled with spatiotemporal structures, so that aspect would be beyond the state of being alive or being dead, so you can say it is immortal by virtue.

The issue that I see in your argument is that you are giving life and death intrinsic values, which could be the case, but we have no way of knowing that thereby turning it more into a philosophical case than anything else. That and a machine is not a living thing, but say that we had the ability to transfer the consciousness of a person to a machine. The person is technically not a living thing yet their consciousness is intact.

[Birth]

Staying true to my initial argument from a scientific point of view, when someone dies you cannot reverse this. I honestly see no point in you stating what we already know. Also, I must say, it just seems like you're just saying random things that somehow pertain to various words of the overall topic.

In this, the evolution of organs is not so remain mortal; rather, it is get as much energy as it can in pools of finite accessible energy. 

Lol. So when you stop getting energy, what happens? You lack the necessary sustenance to survive, so you die. If you could not die, you would not need things to get you life's essential minerals & etc. Again, it seems like you're just saying random things that pertain to various words.

That being said, manipulation of biological processes via psychokinesis would skew the future state of the biological organism being affected independently of its present state since information describing the what it will be in future moments is manipulated, so if a cell is aged, it is possible to redefine that aged cell as new young cell making it so that it is possible to reverse aged cells to younger cells.

=/ Although I appreciate this, I'm trying to stay away from "psi".

The issue that I see in your argument is that you are giving life and death intrinsic values, which could be the case, but we have no way of knowing that thereby turning it more into a philosophical case than anything else.

I understand, and the whole argument is supposed to be from a biased point of view. Even though I'm defending it, I don't wholeheartedly accept this.

[flamedancer]

Lol. So when you stop getting energy, what happens? You lack the necessary sustenance to survive, so you die. If you could not die, you would not need things to get you life's essential minerals & etc.

Your premise is circular, because it implies that things die because they are meant to die where them dying is a result of them being meant to die where we know they are meant to die because they die. In other words, you are arguing that the sole reason for things being "mortal" is so that they can be "mortal" in which the purpose of this mortality is expressed in their mortality.

Again, it seems like you're just saying random things that pertain to various words.

This was to demonstrate that life is the product of extrapolations of the initial coordination and correlations of the chemical reactions involved where life has no intrinsic value or purpose. To kick it up a notch, I can also state that reason and logic are also not intrinsic to the universe as was proven via Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

[Mech]

So, the question is how do we define death? The concept of death can  be associated with the irreversible termination of biological processes to sustain an organism, which is important because some biological processes can undergo changes which disturb its biological functions; however, they are able to resume such biological functions when the perturbing or destabilizing force is removed.

I disagree with this definition of death. I feel it is suitable for single celled organisms, yet loses defining scope for multicellular organisms. In multicellular organisms, large amounts of irreversible terminations of biological functions occur, yet the multicellular organism can still survive. It is in fact fundamental to formation of multicellular organisms. Irreversibly losing one ribosome will not be fatal to a human body.

Life can be defined as a self sustained chemical reaction that has a high degree of order, structure, and assembly where you have to have enough energy to facilitate the essential chemical reactions and processes without having them destroyed in the process.

I also feel that order and structure are unimportant to life. These are subjective. I would define life as a self sustained chemical reaction that responds to stimulus via feedback loops.

Life is basically energy, but the work energy can do is inversely proportional to the entropy in the system and the entropy in a system can only increase and not decrease, which works against the order and complexity that is life. The problem with discussing life is that it is seen as a homogeneous and static phase when that is not the case. It is a heterogeneous and dynamic entity catenated in both time and space where various chemical reactions create multiple paralleling compartments, processes, signals, etc. spanning various varying levels of time. As such, when one thing disturbs something, it is brought into homeostasis or dampened via some restoring force. In this, life is able to maintain itself even when entropic forces are in play.       

It is not just because it disturbs something that it is allowed to be maintained. A deer kicking a rock will not prevent entropy from affecting the deer. It is much more specific. Albert Lehninger argues that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. According to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy." [1] In other words, life is not free entropy, it expedites the process. Life being in an entropic system does not mean it needs to break down. In fact, as long as it provides processes which generate entropy that in exchange sustain it, life can be sustained.

When dealing with psychokinesis, you are dealing with the skewing of possible histories in which a history can be called a mathematical function which deals with the trajectory or path of energy within a certain interval of time, but since it manipulates what could happen where the desired outcome is what happens instead of what would have happened without the intention of the person, it manipulates multiple histories where the alternative one is the only one that happens thereby resulting in the established trajectory of that energy, but in doing so, it goes against our concepts of the arrow of time, because it manipulates information describing the initial conditions for that thing be affected. That being said, manipulation of biological processes via psychokinesis would skew the future state of the biological organism being affected independently of its present state since information describing the what it will be in future moments is manipulated, so if a cell is aged, it is possible to redefine that aged cell as new young cell making it so that it is possible to reverse aged cells to younger cells. When dealing with the idea of multiple histories, the sum of probable trajectories and thus ways for energy to be pulled from about anywhere is infinite with whichever one being chosen is tied to the associated/correlated state, so energy amounts in the present environment is not an issue since psi seems to have transtemporal and transpatial properties.  Now, I am not saying immortality is possible or impossible. It is worth noting that the thing skewing histories would have to do so while remaining unentangled with spatiotemporal structures, so that aspect would be beyond the state of being alive or being dead, so you can say it is immortal by virtue.

I fully agree with this. I feel that the closest plausible way a person can get to immortality is through the use of psychokinesis. For more information, look up the thought experiment "Quantum Immortality". Essentially it is Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. From wikipedia:

Unlike the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment which used poison gas and a radioactive decay trigger, this version involves a lethal weapon and a device that measures the spin value of photons. Every 10 seconds, the spin value of a fresh photon is measured. Conditioned upon that quantum bit, the weapon is either deployed, killing the experimenter, or it makes an audible "click" and the experimenter survives.
The theories are distinctive from the point of view of the experimenter only; their predictions are otherwise identical.
The probability of surviving the first iteration of the experiment is 50%, under both interpretations, as given by the squared norm of the wavefunction. At the start of the second iteration, if the Copenhagen interpretation is true, the wavefunction has already collapsed, so if the experimenter is already dead, there's a 0% chance of survival. However, if the many-worlds interpretation is true, a superposition of the live experimenter necessarily exists, regardless of how many iterations or how improbable the outcome. Barring life after death, it's not possible for the experimenter to experience having been killed, thus the only possible experience is one of having survived every iteration.

Long story short, to attain this, whether or not quantum immortality is true, you need to be constantly psychokineticly forcing the outcome "You survive".

Finally my favorite adage: "Immortality is all fun and games, until your sun supernovas."

[1](source:Lehninger, Albert (1993). Principles of Biochemistry, 2nd Ed.. Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-87901-711-2)

[Birth]

Your premise is circular, because it implies that things die because they are meant to die where them dying is a result of them being meant to die where we know they are meant to die because they die. In other words, you are arguing that the sole reason for things being "mortal" is so that they can be "mortal" in which the purpose of this mortality is expressed in their mortality

You have to forgive me, I tend to not explain things often because I assume the reader knows details of what I'm writing down. I'm not going to get completely scientific on how physical organisms die, I assume you know this. You should probably re-read my whole first post again, maybe you should see some clarity in why I propose this. Physical organisms are meant to die because Birth, Sleep, and Death/ Life, Death Rebirth are cycles that we all have seen and come to know.

If you're going to question something because you're not sure on what I mean, it would be best if you ask me rather than write down a statement questioning logic you yourself fabricated.  I'm actually getting kind of irritated just responding because it's almost as if you didn't absorb my initial post, just questioning certain parts of it. If you want to understand my proposal, you should read and absorb the whole thing. Still, if there is something bothering you feel free to post, but please read the whole thing, and do so in clarity. I loathe explaining things down to the simplest detail.


Edit: I should also add, although interesting, please leave psychokinesis out of this thread. If this just becomes a topic on why you think psychokinesis or any other thing pertaining to "psi" are more plausible, I'll just ask for the thread to be locked.

[Mech]

"Physical Immortality to all living organisms on Earth is an unattainable endowment for the fact that this unique characteristic defies the very law of the earth which is Death. " -Birth

This is my proposal. What do you think about it?

I'm not sure about spiritual immortality, I really have no clue how the spirit functions, so lets not go into that.

You do think Immortality is possible? How would it be?

To Shinichi: So it would appear as if the Immortality they're referring to is spiritual, no? Think of immortality in a scientific sense, because that's what I'm tagging after.

I'm not going to get completely scientific on how physical organisms die, I assume you know this.
Edit: I should also add, although interesting, please leave psychokinesis out of this thread. If this just becomes a topic on why you think psychokinesis or any other thing pertaining to "psi" are more plausible, I'll just ask for the thread to be locked.

So you want to know scientifically how we could possibly scientifically prevent death in a system geared towards death, yet you don't want to talk about how life dies. You also don't want to talk about possibilities of immortality, yet you ask how it could be possible. At the threat of angering you, and you shutting down free speech, I'll talk about your proposal.

Birth: Creation
Sleep: Life
Death: Destruction

Destruction and Creation are the same thing. After all destruction is a form of creation. I would also say that in life, we generate an enormous amount of destruction and creation, so after some rewording I think the cycle should be: Creation, Creation, Creation. At which point I say that physical immortality would do nothing but create, which falls perfectly into this cycle.

[flamedancer]

You have to forgive me, I tend to not explain things often because I assume the reader knows details of what I'm writing down. I'm not going to get completely scientific on how physical organisms die, I assume you know this. You should probably re-read my whole first post again, maybe you should see some clarity in why I propose this. Physical organisms are meant to die because Birth, Sleep, and Death/ Life, Death Rebirth are cycles that we all have seen and come to know.

I understood what you meant. It is just petitio principii (begging the question).

You are making the postulation that physical organisms are meant to die because birth, sleep, and death/ life, death rebirth are cycles that justify the postulation that things are supposed to remain mortal and die in which this postulation is based upon intuitive thought; however, the issue arises when one looks at the logical proof for this postulation, for the logic is circular because things are supposed to remain mortal because they die and they die because they are supposed to remain mortal; however, none of these two axioms/answers satisfy the statement that they die because their purpose is to remain mortal; therefore, it has no logical proof and is an irrational premise/postulation.

We can more easily see the fallacy if we phrase it in the form of an inquiry:

*Things are meant to die.
*Why?
*Things are meant to die because they die, so all things are born to die.

As you see, the question as to why things are meant to die is never answered; rather, the premise is simply reiterated.

So, the question is how do we define death? The concept of death can  be associated with the irreversible termination of biological processes to sustain an organism, which is important because some biological processes can undergo changes which disturb its biological functions; however, they are able to resume such biological functions when the perturbing or destabilizing force is removed.

I disagree with this definition of death. I feel it is suitable for single celled organisms, yet loses defining scope for multicellular organisms. In multicellular organisms, large amounts of irreversible terminations of biological functions occur, yet the multicellular organism can still survive. It is in fact fundamental to formation of multicellular organisms. Irreversibly losing one ribosome will not be fatal to a human body.

This is not altogether true, because the information to create new cells with new biological functions is encoded in the genetic material of the organism (the genetic material would be encoded in chromosome distributed among all the cells of the organism) making it so that new cells, tissues, and organs replace the ones that have died, thus, the biological process was never  terminated. Mutations or having parts missing when it comes to the chromosomes can be disastrous for multicellular organisms since it would contain the loci corresponding to the alleles of genes with information about a particular essential part of its genetic structure making it so that the organism can in fact die from missing singular pieces of its genetic material.

It is not just because it disturbs something that it is allowed to be maintained. A deer kicking a rock will not prevent entropy from affecting the deer. It is much more specific. Albert Lehninger argues that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. According to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy." [1] In other words, life is not free entropy, it expedites the process. Life being in an entropic system does not mean it needs to break down. In fact, as long as it provides processes which generate entropy that in exchange sustain it, life can be sustained.

Biological systems are catenated.This means that they are chained together relative to spatial and temporal scales where you get a series of parallel compartments which propagate biological information in the form of chemical reactions spanning various durations. This results in what is called bifurcation. Basically entropy acting on this system catenated through space and time (biological processes span into the future via the statistical distributions of the canonical ensemble which would embody probability distributions of the microstates in the system which would characterize the multiple possible configurations of discrete energy values) would create a moment of doubling, quadrupling, so on and so forth which would create a type of pitchfork bifurcation in which you have have intervals having one fixed point with three other fixed points where two of them are stable with one unstable one. Since you essentially have a  series of criss crossing forks, you would get what is called an asymptotic behavior where things are limited/dampened by forks going in the opposite direction. This is extremely in important in activation/expression of a particular gene. The duration of the chemical reaction is very important since whether or not something can be reversed or not is tied to its equilibrium. The reason that the internal environment of the organism is not totally destabilized due to internal entropic forces is because of the cascading, complex, hierarchical, heterogeneous, and dynamic structure of living systems.

You also have to keep in mind that we can not directly absorb energy from the sun. It has to be chemically converted for us to use the energy, so while organic chemical processes reduce the amount of free energy available in the environment by locking it into inaccessible organic states, it is converted and used by life itself where the entropic force manifests as life, itself, because the work that the energy could do is locked in away in our biological processes would inversely reduces the work that it could do in the environment.            

When dealing with psychokinesis, you are dealing with the skewing of possible histories in which a history can be called a mathematical function which deals with the trajectory or path of energy within a certain interval of time, but since it manipulates what could happen where the desired outcome is what happens instead of what would have happened without the intention of the person, it manipulates multiple histories where the alternative one is the only one that happens thereby resulting in the established trajectory of that energy, but in doing so, it goes against our concepts of the arrow of time, because it manipulates information describing the initial conditions for that thing be affected. That being said, manipulation of biological processes via psychokinesis would skew the future state of the biological organism being affected independently of its present state since information describing the what it will be in future moments is manipulated, so if a cell is aged, it is possible to redefine that aged cell as new young cell making it so that it is possible to reverse aged cells to younger cells. When dealing with the idea of multiple histories, the sum of probable trajectories and thus ways for energy to be pulled from about anywhere is infinite with whichever one being chosen is tied to the associated/correlated state, so energy amounts in the present environment is not an issue since psi seems to have transtemporal and transpatial properties.  Now, I am not saying immortality is possible or impossible. It is worth noting that the thing skewing histories would have to do so while remaining unentangled with spatiotemporal structures, so that aspect would be beyond the state of being alive or being dead, so you can say it is immortal by virtue.

I fully agree with this. I feel that the closest plausible way a person can get to immortality is through the use of psychokinesis. For more information, look up the thought experiment "Quantum Immortality". Essentially it is Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. From wikipedia:

Unlike the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment which used poison gas and a radioactive decay trigger, this version involves a lethal weapon and a device that measures the spin value of photons. Every 10 seconds, the spin value of a fresh photon is measured. Conditioned upon that quantum bit, the weapon is either deployed, killing the experimenter, or it makes an audible "click" and the experimenter survives.
The theories are distinctive from the point of view of the experimenter only; their predictions are otherwise identical.
The probability of surviving the first iteration of the experiment is 50%, under both interpretations, as given by the squared norm of the wavefunction. At the start of the second iteration, if the Copenhagen interpretation is true, the wavefunction has already collapsed, so if the experimenter is already dead, there's a 0% chance of survival. However, if the many-worlds interpretation is true, a superposition of the live experimenter necessarily exists, regardless of how many iterations or how improbable the outcome. Barring life after death, it's not possible for the experimenter to experience having been killed, thus the only possible experience is one of having survived every iteration.

Long story short, to attain this, whether or not quantum immortality is true, you need to be constantly psychokineticly forcing the outcome "You survive".

The problem with quantum mechanics and psychokinesis are the transpatial and transtemporal issues. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics uses the time symmetric Schrödinger equation; however, wave function collapse is irreversible. In manipulating the history of the object in such a way, it goes against the arrow of time on both quantum and classical levels which makes it incompatible with that interpretation of quantum mechanics. Uncertainty issues arise with matrice multiplications dealing with the Hamiltonian operator with the path integral being the sum of possible trajectories, outcomes, etc.

In classical mechanics, you can write it as:

H = T + V

Where:

H = Hamiltonian

T = kinetic energy

V = the potential operator

where

V=(r,t)

Which is the position and time. Schrödinger used a substitution dealing with a reduced Planck Constant to create a version where the Hamiltonian can be expressed as a wave function, but you still have the position and time involved which is not compatible with transspatiotemporal properties.



 Since whatever aspect that does this remains unentangled with space and time, it would be beyond concepts of life and death effectively making it immortal; therefore, there is an immortal aspect of us by virtue. As such, it would not be associated with any particular moment in time or a particular physical state, so it would exists when the universe dies.    

[zelvicx2059]

We wouldn't need organs if we were immortal right?
What if there is a living organism or creature that is made up of pure energy?
Would it still be considered that it can attain immortality?

[Natus]

Science informs us it's possible to perform a memory transfer on rodents(under development). Science also informs us on the lab made organs, (still needs proper development in this area) and cloning. There is a grey area that comes into play: Over the next few decades it will possible to clone a human body and perform a memory transfer. Science may not provide a self-sustaining body, however it can produce a "new" body upon death, and with the necessary precautions and requirements perform successful memory transfers on this "new" body. Scientifically, you can live as an immortal.

[INFINITE LIGHT]

MY OPINION AND PERSPECTIVES[/U]

1. Soul is already immortal. No hell. Just Heaven. Congratulations you did it.
2. I will speak from the perspective of your body not aging unless killed or otherwise.

Many perspectives Exist. I will tell one from this one.
TOLD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

CONCEPTS
One must evolve to the point where their consciousness can use a tool responsibly without self destruction before granted it's use.

If one is granted a tool that transcends their consciousness to use it they will use it as a weapon EVEN IF UNINTENTIONAL BY THE ORIGINAL CREATOR

All abilities can be used for creation and destruction.

This truth applies to the microcosm and well as the macrocosm.

On earth, the consciousness of the technology is what guides the people instead of the other way around.

We have turned the ability to change the configuration of an atom which on a certain layer of existance is a building block into a tool for destruction. Where this knowledge is a key tool for creation.

At a certain level of consciousness, regardless of the intention, all tools will be used as weapons.

The same effects occur with a "psion" who has abilities he cannot use or a child with a gun. Dysfunction and dysharmony like what is in this world occurs.

_____________________

RELATION TO SUBJECT AT HAND

Wisdom defined as experiential knowledge obtained through experience is powreful. If Earth Men were immortal then the old ones would have too great of an advantage over the new ones.

The old ones would stay in a low state of consciousness and make the world so for the old ones would be the leaders. Bodies that match the functionality and sustainability of the young would make it increasingly difficult for the young to move on to a higher consciousness of growth from generation to generation.

The Earth's overall solution consciousness is low so each generation taking over evolution is what keeps things going.

Old ones of hundreds or thousands with the capability to lead, think, and act at a level that a 1000 year old is able to do would be too horrible of a mixture to go along with the growth of our technology in relationship to our consciousness.

It would be worse, for the old ones would simply keep people in old one mentality.

Racism, hatred, savegry, fear, dogma, rejection of evolution in all areas.

You take your pick.

As such, immortality is not at mass granted to this world as of yet.

______________

I BELIEVE IMMORTALITY IS POSSIBLE

I believe that one grows to such an understanding matched with abilities to personify that understanding that they program their bodies using their specific system of understanding and they don't die.

I think a key fallacy is that the body HAS to age.  The cells can just recreate themselves in the same way without aging occuring. So can the energetic fields and so on and so forth.

I think it practically begins when you are able to effect your body through whatever system you use. And are able to communicate with not only your energy field but with it. When are you able to program specific things into and do things like direct immune system against diseases (I'm a firm believer that immune system was meant to be mentally directed outside of just hoping it works).