Theories of immortality

From Aware Theory
Jump to: navigation, search

For a short summary of awaretheory see Awaretheory simplified.

See also: The true road to immortality, awaretheory.com


If the concept of itomultiplicity is true then there are many more types of immortality or life after death than with singular theories of immortality.

Singular theories of immortality limit the number of different consciousnesses that can exist at one time. This limits the total spectrum of different consciousnesses (awarepaths) that you will ever experience.

Singular theories only allow one awarepath for each ixperiencit at a time.

There are many singular theories of immortality that are not based on science. All religions that believe in some form of immortality fall into this category. They usually lack predictive or explanatory abilities.

Singular theories become a type materialistic theory of immortality, if the principle of oriextension is true.

There are a number of types of immortality that itomultiplicity allows depending on which itoprinciples are true.

The universal theory of immortality says that every conscious being experiences the consciousness of every other conscious being. see: arguments against the universality of conscious existence

Quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia in their section on immortality [1]

By immortality is ordinarily understood the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence. Together with the question of the existence of God, it forms the most momentous issue with which philosophy has to deal. It belongs primarily to rational or metaphysical psychology and the philosophy of religion, though it comes also into contact with other branches of philosophy and some of the natural sciences. Belief in a future life of some sort seems to have been practically universal at all times. Here and there individuals have rejected this belief, and particular forms of religion or systems of philosophy logically incompatible with it have had adherents; still, however vague and inconsistent may have been the views among different peoples as to the character of the life beyond the grave, it remains true that the persuasion of the reality of a future existence seems to have been hitherto ineradicable throughout the human race as a whole. The doctrine of immortality, strictly or properly understood, means personal immortality, the endless conscious existence of the individual soul. It implies that the being which survives shall preserve its personal identity and be connected by conscious memory with the previous life. Unless the individual's identity be preserved, a future existence has relatively little interest. From the doctrine of immortality thus explained there have been sundry variations. Some have held that after a future life of greater or less duration the soul will ultimately perish. Throughout the East there has been a widespread tendency to believe in metempsychosis or transmigration—that individual souls successively animate different human beings, and even the bodies of lower animals. A special form of this view is the theory of metamorphosis, that in such a series of reincarnations the soul undergoes or can undergo evolution and improvement of its condition. Pantheism, if logical, can offer only an impersonal immortality, a future condition in which the individual is absorbed into the absolute—the one infinite being, whether conscious or unconscious. Practically, this differs little from annihilation. For the materialist, the soul, or the conscious life, is but a function of the organism, and necessarily perishes at death'. Positivists, however, while adopting this conclusion, would still cheer mankind with the hope of a place in the "choir invisible", that is, a future existence in the minds and on the lips of future generations—a not very substantial form of immortality, and one of a very aristocratic character, the franchise being narrowly limited.


There are three points about the highlighted statements to be made:

The first highlighted sentence is an example of a religion's understanding of the importance of immortality. Together with the question of the existence of God, it forms the most momentous issue with which philosophy has to deal. The existence of god is of less importance if immortality is a natural process. Of course, any time a powerful being exists that can influence our lives negatively, it has importance. But if you are naturally immortal, all this powerful being can do is cause you more pain and suffering. If this is a powerful being's nature then we should not allow him to have this power over us.

The second is based on this statement: The doctrine of immortality, strictly or properly understood, means personal immortality, the endless conscious existence of the individual soul. It implies that the being which survives shall preserve its personal identity and be connected by conscious memory with the previous life. There is a second grouping of types of immortality based on the materialism and the ixperiencit concept, which the web site http://awaretheory.com is about.

Personal identity and being connected by conscious memory with the previous life is not necessary for your immortality, see the amnesia argument.

What is necessary is that you experience a consciousness after death. The "you" is not a specific body (physipath) nor a specific consciousness (awarepath). You are a very large group of different consciousnesses (awarevenue), that can be produced in many different ways by many different itobodies corresponding to (physivenues). See types of immortality.

A more correct definition of immortality is: There will never be a time where you cannot experience being conscious again. The reason that you do not have to be continuously consciousness to be immortal is that you are never aware of not being conscious. Endless periods of time can go by where you are not conscious and you will not be aware of it. You are only aware of time when you are conscious. Shorts periods of consciousness between long periods on no consciousness can seem like a continuous consciousness for you.

The third point is derived from this sentence: "For the materialist, the soul, or the conscious life, is but a function of the organism, and necessarily perishes at death'." is proved wrong by the science of psychexistology.

The correct scientific statement is: For the itomaterialist, the soul, or the conscious life, is but a function of the structure and functioning of the organism, and the structure and functioning of the organism is reproducible, thus " the soul, or the conscious life" necessarily does not perishes at death'. The soul, or the conscious life, perishes only when all the possible structures and functionings (and there are an enumerable amount of these) that will produce a version of your consciousness can never be produced under any circumstance again. Since this type of immortality does not require any supernatural concepts we can eliminate the word "soul" totally in the previous sentences. In other words we do not need a soul to be immortal or to have physical life after death.

Downloading a person's consciousness has been proposed as a way of creating life after death or extending a person's life. But there are many problems with downloading a person's consciousness. It requires a theory of itomultiplicity, and you can never know if you have the right ixperiencitness being produced by the computer. A regular computer no matter how complex will not work, if you need a brain like structure and functioning to produce consciousness or human consciousness. A computer is likely to produce the behavior of a person but human like behavior does not guarantee the creation of consciousness or ixperiencitness.