<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:nvitamore@austin.rr.com">nvitamore@austin.rr.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:nvitamore@austin.rr.com">nvitamore@austin.rr.com</a>
> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>What was the outcome? I like emortal. Thoughts?</blockquote><div><br>
I think its a question of taste. There was a similar discussion on the GRG list sometime in the last few months and there were many points of view raised (immortal, indefinite longevity, unlimited lifespan, ...). I don't think it will be resolved until someone with the "throw weight" to implant a term in many minds uses it in a number of public forums. (And uses the "term" in a sense that all can agree on.)
<br><br>You could probably compare this topic with the discussion that astronomers have about what to classify Pluto as (planet, minor planet, failed planet, KBO, ...). At least the astronomers know precisely *what* they are talking about. In the transhumanist ... human collective mindset range there is much less precision over exactly what we mean [1].
<br><br>Robert<br><br>1. Taking as a simple examples the divisions over whether one wants ones body+mind, mind alone, contents of ones mind, ones DNA, ones DNA+ones mind, ones enhanced DNA+ones enhanced mind, ones recreated DNA, ones recreated mind, ... to survive for period X where X may range from hundreds to trillions of years.
<br></div><br></div>