[Mark Lapierre]

Interesting discussion you've got going here =D

Originally Posted by williamhessian

beocming very damaged brings up completely different problems altogether. hopefully by the time we have figure out immortality issues, we would have also figured out incredible advances in medicle science and therefore even "very damaged" would be repairable. but again, thats an optomistic speculation on my part.

I suspect that at some point (in the distant future) we'll even be able to 'repair' death. Of course that assumes souls don't exist and all we are is material, or they do exist but don't necessarily pass on at the point of death.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I wasn't talking about people remembering what I said before I left the room. Yes, in the strictest sense of the word, you'll be remembered. But I was talking about how we remember those who are no longer with us, through stories and sometimes legend. Perhaps you are right that the person being remembered doesn't necessarily have to be dead - but he or she would have to be absent for an extended period of time (specially if all who remember also live forever).

I disagree. I often talk about friends who I haven't seen for some time, whether that be a week or a year. Remembering someone does not rely on the length of their absence, but the strength of emotion they inspire.

We tell stories about people who are still alive. We even call people legends while they're still alive. Dying only makes their story greater if we willingly assign greater meaning to it. Dying doesn't automatically make them great.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Man was not designed to live forever. Nature could have evolved perfect organisms that never die of old age - but it didn't. We have been purposely programmed to die after a certain amount of time. Life needs death to succeed, so - in my mind - to cheat death is to cheat life.

You're assuming we were designed and purposely programmed. There's no support for that claim, at least non I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I disagree. Choices are devoid of power and meaning if you have the time to try everything. If you have all eternity, you don't have to choose how to spend your time. You can just use brute force and experience everything there is to experience. The individual experiences then become meaningless... little more than ticks on your "done that" list.

Regardless of how much time we have we would still be faced with the choice of what we enjoy most. Even while acknowledging that we can eventually do everything, what we want to do now will still have power over the decisions we make.

Even if I had eternity to do what I want, if a close friend wants to travel to France with me now, and another wants to travel to Japan, I'll still be faced with a difficult decision.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I just don't believe that endless time and endless freedom results in a more meaningful life. Just as creativity needs boundaries to flourish (just compare the brilliance of The Matrix to the relative mediocrity of Matrix: Revolutions), a life needs boundaries - a beginning and an end - to be meaningful.

Meaning depends largely upon perspective. What is meaningful to one person is not necessarily meaningful to another. That should be clear from any discussion in which people disagree.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

You missed my point. If your time is limited, you'll have to choose between book A and B, or film C and D for that matter. If your time is endless, you can read and see them all. I agree that reading every book ever written would take an eternity and that you'd never finish reading, because people will be writing new books all the time. They'd better! Since you are immortal, you'll need a constant flux of new mental input to avoid eternal boredom!

Again, while you could eventually see them all, choosing which to see now would still be relevant. The choice may be made for different reasons, but there is still a choice. And if we were all immortal we would have a constant source of new input.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Incredible or terrible. Perhaps an immortal Da Vinci would have been a blessing, but I'm glad to have missed out on that one because that also means that the likes of Hitler were mere mortals.

So Da Vinci is bad because Hitler is bad? That's effectively what you're saying, attacking the worth of Da Vinci because of the stigma of Hitler. Argumentum ad hominem, argument against the person. Or also reductio ad Hitlerum. You may also find Godwin's Law amusing

(on that note, it's equally fallacious to argue that immortality would be good because it would mean Da Vinci would be immortal)

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Da Vinci was meant to have his brief stint of brilliance and then make place in this world for another brilliant mind.

Meant to? Under whose decree?

Originally Posted by Sam988

So it is natural that we in our evolution will eventually beat death, and it will be a natural (by)product of the evolution of men

Only if you define 'natural' as 'through the efforts of humans' (which is not part of the standard definition of darwinian evolution, btw)