Talk:Immortality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateImmortality is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 30, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdhillon8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carolina Banks. Peer reviewers: Nicoleabrams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our own version of Immortality[edit]

Immortality seems to be a dream that every human grasps for but is it really a dream or is it seeming to become more of a reality. Well i know for my own personal opinion that i see us in the next at least ten years figuring out a way, (not to fully become immortal) but maybe progressing life to were we can at least stay alive till maybe 2 or 3 hundred years old. A lot of studies have shown that research in birds are helping with the advancements of stopping the process on aging. Then comes with the question would you want to be immortal. Having to watch everyone you ever loved pass before your eyes, and being stuck in a world were everything around you if fading away. That being said the thought of immortality is a fun idea but even the immortal person will eventually have to die. The world as we know it will one day cease to exist so that would be the end of your immortality. In closing immortality is only in the view of the human reaching for it, whether its living forever in a flesh form or living forever in a memory immortality is and will always be in the back of every humans mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VampJedi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your personal soapbox, man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.64.103 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Aubrey de Grey does not use the term 'immortality' - he despises it - neither does SENS foundation use the term immortality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.77.95 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

Better to tag and flag a section than to blank it. Better yet, update and provide a more balanced and comprehensive section. I added a couple tags. Much of this article wold benefit from improved sourcing. Montanabw(talk) 10:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: The Buddhism section is just a personal essay. It is wrong in terms of Buddhist concepts. It cannot be corrected.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the one sentence that you added was pretty odd-sounding and didn't make much sense, either. As you know, I'm not a Buddhist, but to not mention the concept of reincarnation and Samsara (which I understand as basically birth, death, rebirth over and over and over until one achieves enlightenment...) is sort of a basic omission, along with how one achieves a favorable rebirth. And it's kind of standard even for someone like me to understand that Buddhism has very clear teachings about why people are unhappy or have suffering, etc. All seems relevant to the topic of eternal life...? Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arhats pass into parinirvana, not Buddhas. The Buddha was only said to pass into parinirvana, since he was a supreme nirmanakaya demonstrating the awakening of an arhat.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not something laypeople will understand. I think what we need here are sources, and rewriting of material, not wholesale blanking... the entire article needs better sources. I did toss two of the paragraphs in the Buddhism section, the one I kept is a pretty good, if simple, summary and really does need something like that - there is probably room to also distinguish between immortality and the afterlife across the entire article. Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hinayana path and goal is completely different than the Mahayana path and goal.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may need to be explained. Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental biological errors in article[edit]

Could the authors of the following sections please re-read their sources and corrected the following problems:

1. "Natural selection has developed potential biological immortality in at least one species, the jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii.[3]"

This implies that immortality is an evolutionary novelty. However, this would contradict the statement below that even the simplest organisms are immortal. In fact, in the Ageing article, it is stated that mortality is evolutionarily recent, having developed only 700 million years ago.

2. Why are bristlecones pines singled out as potentially immortal? Many (most?) perennial plants are immortal. See for example a collapsed willow tree touch its twigs on the wet ground - dozens new clonal willow trees arise. This cloning ability also is the basis of most of the apples and other fruit we eat daily - all commercially cultivated apple, pear etc trees are artificial grafts and thus clones of one carefully chosen ancestor.

3. "Programmed cell death and the telomere end replication problem are found even in the earliest and simplest of organisms.[17]" Nonsense. The simplest organisms are bacteria, and they do not have chromosomes, let alone telomeres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.154.77 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and punctuation in article seems off[edit]

The article should be rewritten, at least the first section, possibly other sections. The article mentions biological immortality, and then goes on writing about a (human) inability to age instead of actually describing immortality - the inability to die under any circumstance whatsoever.

The writing seems off and quickly goes off a tangent in a paranthesis which have one paragrah stretching over almost 4 lines without any punctuation whatsoever. Wording seems like something have been copied from other sources, and then adapted without correcting tenses.

Taking a description from merriam webster: Simple Definition of immortality

the quality or state of someone or something that will never die or be forgotten : the quality or state of being immortal

A moderator or editor should mark the article up for rewriting as at least to me, the article in the beginning does not describe properly what it implies. 


Eskildsen13 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endoimmortality?[edit]

Is there a definition available for this term? It doesn't seem to be used in the referenced article "Artificial Neural Command Theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.157.216 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge[edit]

Should this article be merged with Indefinite lifespan? --Wyn.junior (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because immortality includes metaphysical interpretations. Most religious people, doubt their immortality, and only believe it after hard work through death and the cultivation of their soul.


Indefinite lifespan -as a notion- is practical and ametaphysical, even if never achieved

Relationship of Immortality to Eternity[edit]

Sentient life in Eternity seems like a form of Hell to me. This article needs a stronger linkage to the concept of Eternity. Physics has some concept of the End of Time, but it is largely incomprehensible to most of us. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and the distorted acceptance of the word death as a semicompromise with reality while the immortality of the essence of the person called soul remains immortal[edit]

The only reason I'm evil is because Jesus never said that in Hell the souls get erased. Eternal pain is my life and I have no intention to disturb it.

Alchemy section removed, relegated to text in Physical immortality section[edit]

The Alchemy section has been a tough fit in this article since I reorganized the crufty version back in 2008. Obviously it should be mentioned as immortality a famous goal of alchemy, but it is neither modern science nor a 'Religious view' on the afterlife.

I finally eliminated the section-- it had no remaining cites, and could be relgated to wikilinks at the beginning of the Physical immortality section. There have been, after all, pre-scientific efforts to create elixirs of immortality that should be acknowledged, but not distract from detailing the latest science. The wikilinks fill the bill, and it improves the flow of the Physical immortality section opener. Yamara ✉ 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam?[edit]

Why isn't Islam included in views of religions? The second biggest religion in the world RickyBlair668 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears nobody has bothered to write it, assuming there is one. Get your best WP:RS on it and be WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have composed a discourse on the subject of Islam, but there is much information yet to be documented. The reason for not attaching it is the misinformation surrounding that particular doctrine. Hans-Otto savant (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of immortality[edit]

Immortality is eternal existence of subject, and subject is all minds.[1] Tzsf (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kolak, Daniel (2007-11-03). I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations for Global Ethics. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-3014-7.

Security section[edit]

@Honto500:. For some groups immortality is a critical technology to a security system. So security has adopted mechanisms to prevent possible immortality. From security prospective immortality is a threat... Who regards immortality as a "critical technology" to security? Who has adopted mechanisms to prevent possible immortality, and what are those mechanisms? Who regards immortality as a threat? What is your source for these claims? Please note that you need real sources for these claims, not fiction. The remainder of your addition is trivia that might belong in a Popular Culture section but is unrelated to security. Squeakachu (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immortality&oldid=1215665870"