From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 09:36:01 MDT
Michael F Dickey wrote:
[gts wrote:]
>> "I don't know that "predestination" has anything to do with
>> the problem. I certainly would like to agree that our deaths
>> are not predestined (i.e., not predetermined), and I support
>> with great optimism any attempt to extend human life expectancy.
>> However I think the question of determinism is a completely
>> separate philosophical problem, and one about which intelligent
>> people are unlikely to find any consensus."
> You take my statement to literally and ignore my meaning.
I don't think I took you too literally, because you continued:
>... right now, we are all 'predestined' to die because
> of aging, that is, because we all still age, and aging leads
> to death, we will all die.
That is a statement of determinism (and fatalism) if ever there was one.
:)
Perhaps it would be better and more accurate to say that 21st century
humans are headed in the direction of death, but not predestined for it.
I wrote:
> "I agree that if immortal beings should ever come to exist
> then they will nevertheless die at the end of the universe
> (if such an end occurs)"
You replied:
> But you said for one to be considered immortal they must be
> immune from death. If they can and will die at the end of
> the universe then by your admitted definition they are not immortal.
As I also stated, the "end of the universe" represents a special case.
If the universe comes to an end then of course all bets are off.
Most of your message continues to ignore this important point. As in the
passage of yours quoted above, you seem wont to belabor the fact that my
general definition of immortality does not provide for the special case
in which the entire bleeping universe disappears. :)
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:41 MST