A Problem With The Word "immortality"?

A recent exchange on the extropian list... I'll wait for a response before making my ideas known (although, most would already know where i stand on this one...)

======

> gts wrote:
> > Robert Bradbury has suggested in light of this thread that we should
> > coin a new term to replace "immortality." I think it's a grand idea.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I think the word you may be looking for is "amortal". [snip]

Robert Bradbury writes:
I'll note that Damien has suggested in other messages "emortal".

In thinking about the evolution of possible vectors further it
seems to me one might also use "unmortal" (in more the English
sense than the derived greek sense).

Unmortals would be constrained by the current physics of the
universe (i.e. no escape hatches via loopholes in physics)
but would not be constrained by local hazard functions
(i.e. point destructor events are of no concern -- this
relates somewhat to Hubert Mania's Nobody's Robody thread).

The best example I can think of would be the shape shifters
in Star Trek Voyager -- who continually return to the
"continuum" where their personal experiences get intermingled
with the body of knowledge of the species. The loss of an
individual might involve the loss of the experience since
the last immersion in the contnuum but everything else could
be retained.

Given the prospects of mind-to-mind links -- something that
DARPA & NSF (confined within NNI perhaps) are funding and
the possible availability of mind transfer and/or mind
merging technologies the concept of "mortality" becomes
a very fuzzy term. How much of "me" must be preserved
within the continuum for me to be "immortal"? Am I
"immortal" if multiple individuals have complete records
of my experience & mental processing capability (i.e.
they know all I knew and could think the way *I* think)
but they *choose* not to regularly utilize those
capabilities. [I.e. avoiding death requires that one
must not only be able to execute the code in ones mind
but one must be able to act on such decisions *in reality*
even if they happen to be sociopathic... i.e. "Surviving"
indefinately in a fully functional state in VR is *not*
"immortality"].

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

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I think the word you may be looking for is "amortal".

Robert Bradbury writes:
A quick google lists various meanings for "a-"
1) separate, apart from, away from
2) not, un-, -less

I think (correct me if I'm stretching) the definition that
Eliezer is seeking would be "un-mortal". I.e. seeking a
system in which "mortal" concerns are irrelevant.

I'd then spin this such that we need two words:
1) A word describing indefinite survival in a more global
environment than that constrained by our current best
approximation of this universe. (Perhaps amortal or
unmortal).
2) A very very very long life within this potentially
limited universe constrained by current (unchanging?)
physical laws. (To my mind "longevity constrained
by physical laws".)

I think these are two distinct cases and it would be helpful
if we could distinguish between them so we can simply
classify people in Camp 1 or 2 instead of trying to
twist their perspectives to match our camp.

Of course there may be additionsl camps I haven't thought of...

======

I'm still going to say I'm working for immortality. The details about this are likely to be scrutinized but, if your going to outlive the antagonizing persons then I say we can call it what we like.

I'm still going to say I'm working for immortality. The details about this are likely to be scrutinized but, if your going to outlive the antagonizing persons then I say we can call it what we like.

Agreed. The word "immortality" has a rich and varied tradition, even if flawed. Trying to replace "immortal" with words like "unmortal" or "amortal" or "emortal" does not satisfy. The attempts smell of compromise, and appear too much like playing games with semantics.

My two cents, B)

I don't think it is possible to successfully create a substitute for the word "Immortality." Remember, a word that has a dictionary definition or a true meaning is useless if the general population doesn't recognize it. Words are gained/lost gradually, sometimes taking many, many decades, or even longer. It would be almost impossible to make a large number of people recognize AND understand a new word. It would take a very long time. ( That is, unless you had a large public advertising budget & a specific plan.) As of now, most people respond to very logical immortality arguments, debates & discussions as if they were "Quack theories." However, at least the word "Immortality" gets a response, positive or negative. At this point, it really doesn't matter. Most people are naturally (and pathetically) skeptical, but will usually grudgingly accept the truth when it finally stares them in the face. The goal should be to find more concrete proof and/or success stories to build the case for immortality (partial at first), as soon as possible.

One more thing. I really like the word 'immortalist", as it fits nicely with the word "immortal." It follows so logically: an "Immortalist", will eventually become "Immortal" (at least partially), thus confirming "Immortality." Due to how this follows, I must admit, my first question for BJK is why the old site was called BJKlein.com-"Home to Immortals." If my reasoning is correct, it should have read "Home to Immortalists." I believe nobody on this site is immortal yet, unless something's been hidden from me. Perhaps BJ or someone else on this site can explain the logic to the old name, or if the name was selected simply because it was "Catchier." This is my first post. Hopefully it works properly. That's all for now. B)

If my reasoning is correct, it should have read "Home to Immortalists." I believe nobody on this site is immortal yet, unless something's been hidden from me. Perhaps BJ or someone else on this site can explain the logic to the old name, or if the name was selected simply because it was "Catchier."

Welcome Limitless,

Excellent first post.. (I hope the first of many more), To answer your question... When I created BJKlein.com, about a year ago, I didn't consider fully the importance of distinguishing between "immortals" and "immoralists". If I had it to do over again, I would change that. As I've said before, in the short term, we will most likely not know 100% for sure if we are immortal or not, even after we conquer the hurdles of biological aging and transhumanize into a more robust substrate, I believe there will still be risks. Now, for the long term, there may be advances that ramp up our intelligence and capability so that we understand our true fate.. only then will we know for sure if we are immortal or not. Of course, this will include answers to the problem of heat death and atomic decay.


Thanks again for your post.
BJK