View Full Version : Immortality or Invulnerability
DOOM!
01-27-2009, 12:51 PM
Since we're on a roll, let's have another "waht would u chooze..." thread.
Keep in a sharp eye open: Immortality and Invulnerability are not the same, but, which would you choose and what would you do with it is just what you want to post here.
SigmaSD
01-27-2009, 12:58 PM
I would like to have invulnerability because then I woud be able to travel to the center of the planet just to see what it looks like. And I would also like to go to the sun and live there except me. :p
Akito0o
01-27-2009, 01:01 PM
I agree i would want invulnerability. this way i could do many things without getting hurt and i would live a long life anyway. And i don't think i would want to live for ever and see every one i love die .
wowzabunny
01-27-2009, 01:14 PM
invulnerability, wont live forever but wont get hurt
Amray The II
01-27-2009, 01:19 PM
I would like to have invulnerability because then I woud be able to travel to the center of the planet just to see what it looks like. And I would also like to go to the sun and live there except me. :p
Interesting, but may I ask how you would get to the center of the Earth? With the Earths current resources it would take a number of your lifetimes to reach the middle of our planet, by which time you will have died of natural causes (old age). If all succeeds though then enjoy your few seconds of fun down there.
The same can apply to your little journey to the Sun as well as to the Earth's core. Your life of invulnerability would be wasted on your travel to the Sun, in which time you would probably die, again from natural causes (old age).
-----------
I myself would like to be Immortal. I would like to see how the world progresses. When this Earth is destroyed then I would spend decades floating around space in search of another planet. I would make sure to pack some items with me to pass the time by.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-27-2009, 01:29 PM
Immortality for a few reasons.
I think too much, so having all the time in the universe to think suits me.
I don't like eating (food tastes good, but personally I find the need to eat annoying)
Maybe I'm a masochist, but between never dying and never getting hurt, I'd rather never die. I could die as many times as I wanted if I were immortal, but I'd still live. I'll die five more times than the mortal man who died once. And then some.
Interesting, but may I ask how you would get to the center of the Earth? With the Earths current resources it would take a number of your lifetimes to reach the middle of our planet, by which time you will have died of natural causes (old age). If all succeeds though then enjoy your few seconds of fun down there.
It is impossible to reach the center of the earth, thanks to buoyancy. To not be repelled outwards by buoyancy, your vessel (or your body, if you are a invulnerable person jumping into a volcano) needs to be more dense than iron compressed by the entire planet's gravity. Good luck with that, I say.
I myself would like to be Immortal. I would like to see how the world progresses. When this Earth is destroyed then I would spend decades floating around space in search of another planet. I would make sure to pack some items with me to pass the time by.
What will you do when all the planets and stars in the universe have expired?
Rein*
01-27-2009, 01:58 PM
Explain the difference to me and i'll choose
Explain the difference to me and i'll choose
Invulnerability -- You can not be physically hurt. Stepping in front of a speeding freight train will not as much as break a fingernail on your body. You will still age and die.
Immortality -- You can not die. You will (probably) not age. You can probably experience pain and injury, though no matter how severe they will never kill you. If you fall into a well or into the sea, you are stuck there forever.
Rein*
01-27-2009, 02:06 PM
I see. I guess in that case if i had to choose invulnerability would be good but i don't thnk i'll need either.
Mango
01-27-2009, 02:09 PM
Invulnerability. I'm a complete wimp when it comes to getting hurt, so I wouldn't have to worry about that anymore. And the idea of living forever... I'm not sure it appeals to me.
Beezer
01-27-2009, 02:24 PM
Invulnerability. I'd go fighting round the world like russel crowe.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Immortality can (in some lore) also refer to regeneration. An immortal being taking a stab or a bullet heals in the affected area. It's not unreasonable to think that lost limbs can, perhaps even with time, be recovered too. However, an immortal person CAN die for a short period of time. If an immortal person's head is crushed by a truck, he or she will remain dead until the truck is removed and the head can regenerate to function normally. Or if an immortal body is down at the bottom of the ocean, the pressure will continually crush the body and the person can't really be alive until he or she get back to the surface.
Earth's natural gravity will, quite a ways off from the core, be counteracted by the spinning centrifugal forces. You'll basically float weightlessly at a certain point.
Immortality is really a more grotesque form of eternal invulnerability. Sure, you can die, but you can't die.
Also, a human being alone can't survive out in space. An immortal might drift until he or she finds a habitable environment and then resume living, but where there's complete nullo without atmospherical pressure, the blood would stop where it is and the immortal would just sort of cryogenically freeze or something, I don't know what the terminology for freezing in space is.
Brandandy
01-27-2009, 02:43 PM
Invulnerability. It would be awesome to do whatever I want and not get hurt:p. Living 4ever would get pretty lonely....
RJ169
01-27-2009, 02:49 PM
i would pick immortality because i want to live forever
Immortality can (in some lore) also refer to regeneration. An immortal being taking a stab or a bullet heals in the affected area. It's not unreasonable to think that lost limbs can, perhaps even with time, be recovered too. However, an immortal person CAN die for a short period of time. If an immortal person's head is crushed by a truck, he or she will remain dead until the truck is removed and the head can regenerate to function normally. Or if an immortal body is down at the bottom of the ocean, the pressure will continually crush the body and the person can't really be alive until he or she get back to the surface.
Regeneration isn't true immortality. If you look at the word immortal, it's composed of the prefix "im-" and the word "mortal". "im-" is a variant of "in-", means in this context means "not". "Mortal" means "someone susceptible to death." Thus, to truly be immortal, you must not be able to die in any form or way -- even briefly. So the "Heroes" style of immortality isn't really immortality. It's possibly to permanently kill anyone susceptible to temporary death by running them through a wood chipper and dispersing their bodies over different parts of the world.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-27-2009, 02:59 PM
We need to further define.
Immortality: The ability to die without actually dying.
Invulnerability: The inability to die, faced with inevitable natural death
I never said immortality composed of the facet of regeneration, but if an immortal were in any state in which they couldn't be alive, they wouldn't be dead, but they wouldn't be alive either. So I used the word "death" in a figurative sense.
I just remembered. In CG, Cera went down to the bottom of the ocean in a knightmare. She basically kept dying from the crushing ocean pressure and didn't really revive herself until she got close enough to the surface to where a normal human body WOULDN'T be crushed.
The same illustration I used (and probably where I got it from).
So yes, running an immortal through a woodchipper and scattering their pieces in places they can't reach one another is essentially "killing the immortal". But if and when those parts eventually reunite, once you get a functioning head the entire body will probably manifest itself albeit some phenomenon to facilitate the fact that they're immortal and can't die.
fairychild
01-27-2009, 03:02 PM
it really depends on the type of immortality...if it was similar to the kind in death becomes her then I'd rather be invulnerable to damage then live forever with a hole in my stomach. Plus-how could I afford so many cans of spray paint?
DOOM!
01-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Allright, let's spice 'em up with some alternative definitions, then:
Immortality: You can be killed and kill yourself, but will not die spontaneously, by disease or hunger.
Invulnerability: You cannot be killed or kill yourself, but you will die through eventual degradation, very slowly, (and possibly painfully).
blueangel06661
01-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Allright, let's spice 'em up with some alternative definitions, then:
Immortality: You can be killed and kill yourself, but will not die spontaneously, by disease or hunger.
Invulnerability: You cannot be killed or kill yourself, but you will die through eventual degradation, very slowly, (and possibly painfully).
Ignoring this ^^^^^^^
Because it's kinda stupid to change it halfway though....
I'd say Immortality.. As long as I wasn't the only one :D
Reason: Because whats life without feeling pain? It must be awfully boring to get in a play fight with your best friend and not feel a thing.. And if your immortal you can get hurt.. But regenerate :] Even though you may eventually go crazy.. >.>
Tetsanosuke
01-27-2009, 03:16 PM
Regeneration isn't true immortality. If you look at the word immortal, it's composed of the prefix "im-" and the word "mortal". "im-" is a variant of "in-", means in this context means "not". "Mortal" means "someone susceptible to death." Thus, to truly be immortal, you must not be able to die in any form or way -- even briefly. So the "Heroes" style of immortality isn't really immortality. It's possibly to permanently kill anyone susceptible to temporary death by running them through a wood chipper and dispersing their bodies over different parts of the world.
Now this whole thing is getting interesting. If you can't 'die' but you can get hurt (like a smashed in head), then how do you stop from dieing? Or do your body parts still function as your separated and busted head lays there, if with enough of the brain intact- thinking about the rest of your immortality being cut off from perception?
If that's true then invulnerability seems like the best choice in any case. @_@. That is unless, immortality is also inferring to a sort of invulnerability.
DOOM!
01-27-2009, 03:27 PM
Ignoring this ^^^^^^^
Because it's kinda stupid to change it halfway though....
I'M THE DM AND WHAT I SAY GOES, SEE? I oughtta teach you by putting that in the first post, but I think it's more fun to leave it an obnoxious sand box for you kiddies. You wanted some rules, I gave the most groundfooted rules I could.
_Freddie_
01-27-2009, 03:58 PM
You all think the end outcome of being immortal is floating around in space?
Well, that is somewhat correct, except for the "just" part.
In this thread, it's suggested you still feel pain even though your immortal.
Here is my point. You survive the end of the earth and left in space. If you are put in a vacuum, you only stay conscious for about 10 seconds. Spending eternity unconscious isn't dying, but it isn't what I'd consider living either.
Now, lets just assume you manage to stay conscious by some absurd means. You'd quickly wish you were unconscious.
"Some degree of consciousness will probably be retained for 9 to 11 seconds (see chapter 2 under Hypoxia). In rapid sequence thereafter, paralysis will be followed by generalized convulsions and paralysis once again. During this time, water vapor will form rapidly in the soft tissues and somewhat less rapidly in the venous blood. This evolution of water vapor will cause marked swelling of the body to perhaps twice its normal volume unless it is restrained by a pressure suit. (It has been demonstrated that a properly fitted elastic garment can entirely prevent ebullism at pressures as low as 15 mm Hg absolute [Webb, 1969, 1970].) Heart rate may rise initially, but will fall rapidly thereafter. Arterial blood pressure will also fall over a period of 30 to 60 seconds, while venous pressure rises due to distention of the venous system by gas and vapor. Venous pressure will meet or exceed arterial pressure within one minute. There will be virtually no effective circulation of blood. After an initial rush of gas from the lungs during decompression, gas and water vapor will continue to flow outward through the airways. This continual evaporation of water will cool the mouth and nose to near-freezing temperatures; the remainder of the body will also become cooled, but more slowly."
Enjoy your eternity of suffering.
So I'd go with invulnerability.
Now this whole thing is getting interesting. If you can't 'die' but you can get hurt (like a smashed in head), then how do you stop from dieing? Or do your body parts still function as your separated and busted head lays there, if with enough of the brain intact- thinking about the rest of your immortality being cut off from perception?
The very concept of immortality when applied to people is rather silly, but you've got to work with what you're given.
There is of course various loopholes. If you have a fantastic luck that prevents you from ever having an accident, getting hurt, or being subject to cellular degradation, you are for all intents and purposes immortal. Problems like, "what would happen if you had an accident" are solved by you not having accidents through your ridiculously good luck. If someone shoots a gun at you point blank range, it either jams or a bird passes by catching it, or the bullet comes out of the barrel at a 60 degree angle. A sort of divine plot armor if you'd like.
bgc2040
01-27-2009, 05:31 PM
id pick Invulnerability
being immortal would suck i mean its a long time to live and not enough stuff to do
DarkMoonPrince
01-27-2009, 05:40 PM
I'd pick Imortality, Even though the thoughts of living forever when earth gets destroyed, having to wait years and years until there's another planet with living things. horrible thought, but still you'd have to be careful of being immortal, you can get hurt, your body would be screwed up if you're not careful. Floating in space for such a long time and being lonely, you'd have to deal with it. scary, huh. lol
Diocletian
01-27-2009, 06:09 PM
I forgot what I said on the last "OMG IMMORTALITY" thread, so I'll B.S. it.
Neither is possible. Both are way to similar only invulnerability is like immortality because if nothing can harm you, nothing can kill you. I pick yes.
Miss Moonlight
01-27-2009, 08:09 PM
Well, i'd like to die sometime, so if I had to choose, i'd pick invulnerability.
This way if I forget to look both ways before crossing the street and get hit by a car or two, I can simply get back up and freak everyone out.
Although, i'd probably face alot of really, really, angry drivers.
Ayame_Sohma
01-27-2009, 08:35 PM
I think at some point i would like to die.. So I'd pick Invulnerability.
Saikoro
01-27-2009, 08:43 PM
I would choose Immortality. Having infinite life, being able to store infinite knowledge. I would also have like a million years to see what really works with women. Also, I could pull wicked pranks on people and not see them in fifty years, and not have aged. Greatest prank ever.
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-27-2009, 10:01 PM
Invulnerability necessarily implies Immortality. If you die from old age you clearly aren't invulnerable.
ZukaxxMimozu
01-27-2009, 10:17 PM
I myself would like to be Immortal. I would like to see how the world progresses. When this Earth is destroyed then I would spend decades floating around space in search of another planet. I would make sure to pack some items with me to pass the time by.
I wonder, wouldn't that be the whole Invulnerable thing? that would be impossible without it. since you would die from lack of oxygen, your Immortality would have nothing to do with it, right?
Though I might be wrong...heck, I might have no idea what I'm talking about, in wich case I'm just making myself look like a prick...dang
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-27-2009, 11:21 PM
I wonder, wouldn't that be the whole Invulnerable thing? that would be impossible without it. since you would die from lack of oxygen, your Immortality would have nothing to do with it, right?
Though I might be wrong...heck, I might have no idea what I'm talking about, in wich case I'm just making myself look like a prick...dang
Well, there are different types of immortality. There is one type in which you are invulnerable, but there's also the Wolverine type (things still hurt you, you just get better). Either you'd be floating around in constant pain from the extremely low temperatures (unless you're in a solar system, where the half of you facing the sun is likely to be heated up a great deal), float around in unconceivable boredom, or you'd pass out from lack in oxygen. The real problems with the statement you quoted is:
A) It assumes a very specific and unlikely scenario in which the entire earth-moon system is atomized and the matter is spread in a wide area, and there are no other large collections of matter in the immediate area or else you'd still be land-bound (or star-bound or singularity-bound).
B) An insane assumption that you'd be able to actually control your own direction in space with out the use of one or more Holy Infinite Compressed Air Cans or some sort of similar system. Backstroke won't work as there's effectively nothing to backstroke against.
C) A vast underestimation of the time it would take to reach Mars or Venus at such low speeds, much less anywhere interesting. On the plus side, you have forever to get there.
D) It assumes that their immortality extends to their stuff. Why would their collection of Naruto books much less clothing survive the extreme heat, frigid cold, and high radiation of space, even if they do?
Khanxay
01-27-2009, 11:23 PM
Does invulnerability give the the ability to survive through say... an episode of SpongeBob?
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-27-2009, 11:32 PM
Does invulnerability give the the ability to survive through say... an episode of SpongeBob?
It would have to.
LittleMomo
01-28-2009, 12:02 AM
I would pick invulnerability, sure I may grow old, but at least I didn't have any horrific sickness or disasters during those times. Then my son/daughter can have my invulnerability and it'll pass on. ^^
Khanxay
01-28-2009, 12:18 AM
It would have to.
Woo! No more brain damage!
Not that I would want to watch an episode of SpongeBob.
Amray The II
01-28-2009, 12:42 PM
What will you do when all the planets and stars in the universe have expired?
I said I would pack some items. Those items would consist of many books to read. It would also consist of many Zippo lighters for me to flick in boredom, as I like to play with lighters. Electronics would be at a fault as there are no ways of recharging batteries and such, so if anything I would have to reserve them. I also adore sleeping but now I will have no deadlines in which to actually wake up. What is more is that I will still have posession of my penis.
Anyway if there indeed are many other planets with life on them out there then it would be great to see what they are like and what events occur on them while the existence of the Universe is still in action. It would be like travelling to all of the different Final Fantasy games where all developement and culture is different. Humans state that the end of their life is a lifetime away, so I could keep thinking that the end of existence is "..ages yet".
I said I would pack some items. Those items would consist of many books to read. It would also consist of many Zippo lighters for me to flick in boredom, as I like to play with lighters. Electronics would be at a fault as there are no ways of recharging batteries and such, so if anything I would have to reserve them. I also adore sleeping but now I will have no deadlines in which to actually wake up. What is more is that I will still have posession of my penis.
Anyway if there indeed are many other planets with life on them out there then it would be great to see what they are like and what events occur on them while the existence of the Universe is still in action. It would be like travelling to all of the different Final Fantasy games where all developement and culture is different. Humans state that the end of their life is a lifetime away, so I could keep thinking that the end of existence is "..ages yet".
You don't seem to grasp the timescale of forever. There is a time where all the matter in the universe will have crumbled, and all there is left is you floating around in a large empty void. There are no stars. No planets. You are in fact the only matter in existence. This roughly 100,000,000,000,000 years away, but that is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity.
Amray The II
01-28-2009, 01:13 PM
You don't seem to grasp the timescale of forever. There is a time where all the matter in the universe will have crumbled, and all there is left is you floating around in a large empty void. There are no stars. No planets. You are in fact the only matter in existence. This roughly 100,000,000,000,000 years away, but that is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity.
And You do not seem to be grasping the fact that this is a "What if.." thread where the occurances included within it are impossible, and that I am playing the part of the "Jester" that pays no serious attention to such questions that have no relevance to the reality of life, which is of most importance to me.
Gizoku
01-28-2009, 01:45 PM
Immortality. I wouldnt mind living for a little longer. I want to see the future and what it has to bring. If I die before that then so be it.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-28-2009, 01:51 PM
I've been saying from the very beginning. This is the following collective agreement from people discussing the nature of immortality and invulnerability.
Invulnerability: Inability to feel pain or die by controlled means, (i.e. disease, poison, gunfire, hanging). While the invulnerable are incapable of being harmed, they do age albeit perhaps much more slowly than normal. As it is stipulated that they CAN and DO age, they will eventually expire naturally.
Immortality: Inability to die by any means, whether controlled or spontaneous. Immortals do not age, and typically retain the age they were when immortality was attained. Lore of born immortals also shows a progressive age which reflects the nature of their experience. Immortals do not die by any means, though they can be figuratively killed (i.e. shot, stabbed, run through a wood chipper and scattered over the world). Although most immortals are also invulnerable to a degree, pure immortality does not consist in the inability to feel pain, and so it is agreed by the general posting community that an immortal will feel pain if shot, stabbed, or slashed.
So, being invulnerable means you'd be a god all your life, and would die a god. 80 years of whoopee.
Being immortal means you'd be a god for eternity, but probably nobody would know. If earth were destroyed you would float in space and cease to be conscious of your own existence until you, by unknown means, arrived in an environment habitable by human beings.
So, this is the undebatable.
*An immortal CANNOT DIE
*An immortal CAN FIGURATIVELY DIE
*An immortal WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE FLOATING IN SPACE
*An invulnerable CANNOT BE KILLED BY MEANS OTHER THAN AGE
*The invulnerable ONLY DIE OF OLD AGE
So by general consensus I have been right since my very first post on the difference between the two.
And still, I would choose immortality.
EDIT: Gizoku, if you were immortal you couldn't die
EDIT EDIT: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF IMMORTALITY, OR FOR THAT MATTER ETERNITY OR THE LACK THEREOF! We do not know if the universe will go on forever or if there is an expiration date. Anybody arguing towards scientific realism beyond the explanation of invulnerability or immortality is forgetting that this thread became a "What if..." the moment we had to choose between immortality and invulnerability.
So Hamasaki, get over it dude.
Alycursed
01-28-2009, 01:58 PM
If I pick immortality & I'm decapitated.. then what?
Do I regenerate or something?
'cause that would seriously suck.
I don't think I'd be able to choose though.
Invulnerablity would be pretty sweet.
And Immortality would be cool too..
Eh. Immortality. :]
And You do not seem to be grasping the fact that this is a "What if.." thread where the occurances included within it are impossible, and that I am playing the part of the "Jester" that pays no serious attention to such questions that have no relevance to the reality of life, which is of most importance to me.
A hypothetical situation must be thoroughly examined. You can't stop it when an inconvenient aspect arises.
So, this is the undebatable.
*An immortal CANNOT DIE
*An immortal CAN FIGURATIVELY DIE
*An immortal WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE FLOATING IN SPACE
*An invulnerable CANNOT BE KILLED BY MEANS OTHER THAN AGE
*The invulnerable ONLY DIE OF OLD AGE
So by general consensus I have been right since my very first post on the difference between the two.
And still, I would choose immortality.
These are your definitions. They are not some universal truth, just because you choose to define the words this way.
EDIT EDIT: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF IMMORTALITY, OR FOR THAT MATTER ETERNITY OR THE LACK THEREOF! We do not know if the universe will go on forever or if there is an expiration date. Anybody arguing towards scientific realism beyond the explanation of invulnerability or immortality is forgetting that this thread became a "What if..." the moment we had to choose between immortality and invulnerability.
Why shouldn't science be applied to the consequences of hypothetical scenarios?
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-28-2009, 02:27 PM
This thread became hypothetical as soon as the words "invulnerability" and "immortality" were used. As there are no known ways of attaining either, we're acting purely on imagination. I never said it shouldn't be applied, I was stating the grounds we're on because some posters seem to feel that way.
I keep revising my definitions based on what most people are defining them as.
More people agree that immortality in its purest sense involves the ability to feel pain, and likewise can figuratively die.
More people agree than if you're invulnerable, you can age, and henceforth eventually die of immortality.
It's not only the way I choose to define it, it's how most people seem to be agreeing with each other.
This thread became hypothetical as soon as the words "invulnerability" and "immortality" were used. As there are no known ways of attaining either, we're acting purely on imagination. I never said it shouldn't be applied, I was stating the grounds we're on because some posters seem to feel that way.
I keep revising my definitions based on what most people are defining them as.
More people agree that immortality in its purest sense involves the ability to feel pain, and likewise can figuratively die.
More people agree than if you're invulnerable, you can age, and henceforth eventually die of immortality.
It's not only the way I choose to define it, it's how most people seem to be agreeing with each other.
But there isn't an universal definition of the words. Attempting to make one is futile. There will never be a specific meaning to the words, the same way there will never be a specific height that is "tall."
What people think is utterly irrelevant. A few hundred years ago almost everyone thought the earth was flat. Almost everyone was wrong. Truth is not a democracy.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-28-2009, 03:27 PM
Tell that to the G.C. Merriam Company.
"If enough people spell (or mispell) a word, it will be listed as an accepted alternative."
The downfall of descriptivism corrupts the god that is our dictionary.
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-28-2009, 03:55 PM
I've been saying from the very beginning. This is the following collective agreement from people discussing the nature of immortality and invulnerability.
Invulnerability: Inability to feel pain or die by controlled means, (i.e. disease, poison, gunfire, hanging). While the invulnerable are incapable of being harmed, they do age albeit perhaps much more slowly than normal. As it is stipulated that they CAN and DO age, they will eventually expire naturally.
Immortality: Inability to die by any means, whether controlled or spontaneous. Immortals do not age, and typically retain the age they were when immortality was attained. Lore of born immortals also shows a progressive age which reflects the nature of their experience. Immortals do not die by any means, though they can be figuratively killed (i.e. shot, stabbed, run through a wood chipper and scattered over the world). Although most immortals are also invulnerable to a degree, pure immortality does not consist in the inability to feel pain, and so it is agreed by the general posting community that an immortal will feel pain if shot, stabbed, or slashed.
So, being invulnerable means you'd be a god all your life, and would die a god. 80 years of whoopee.
Being immortal means you'd be a god for eternity, but probably nobody would know. If earth were destroyed you would float in space and cease to be conscious of your own existence until you, by unknown means, arrived in an environment habitable by human beings.
So, this is the undebatable.
*An immortal CANNOT DIE
*An immortal CAN FIGURATIVELY DIE
*An immortal WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE FLOATING IN SPACE
*An invulnerable CANNOT BE KILLED BY MEANS OTHER THAN AGE
*The invulnerable ONLY DIE OF OLD AGE
So by general consensus I have been right since my very first post on the difference between the two.
And still, I would choose immortality.
EDIT: Gizoku, if you were immortal you couldn't die
EDIT EDIT: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF IMMORTALITY, OR FOR THAT MATTER ETERNITY OR THE LACK THEREOF! We do not know if the universe will go on forever or if there is an expiration date. Anybody arguing towards scientific realism beyond the explanation of invulnerability or immortality is forgetting that this thread became a "What if..." the moment we had to choose between immortality and invulnerability.
So Hamasaki, get over it dude.
Being "Invulnerable" while dieing from age isn't logically consistent. I can't die from disease, as no virus can alter my DNA to replicate, but my DNA can start being distorted from the loss of my telomeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere) (To use an example of one of the many causes of aging)? There is no "perfect" DNA sequence, so whatever force would be protecting me from, say, cancer (the mutation of DNA resulting in immortal cells) would not be protecting me from loss of DNA over time due to the imperfect replication of DNA? That doesn't make sense from any standpoint. I'd either be invulnerable or I wouldn't be. Likewise, it's hard to imagine how I would actually "die" from old age, because it isn't old age itself that kills people, but any number of other conditions to which old people become vulnerable.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-28-2009, 04:04 PM
That's true. Old age never killed, medically. Death by age is really more like a loss of breath or a stroke, or heart failure, some reason of that nature.
Regardless, historical invulnerables clearly age, and they eat and drink and sleep. Immortals don't need to, though greek gods are said to have done all of the preceeding.
It can be assumed that the "hypothetical" definition of invulnerability, with disregard to its literal root definition, is the ability to survive a bullet, but not the ability to live forever, hinting that at some point the invulnerable MUST die.
Also, the immortal gods have killed each other. There's a wealth of god wars portraying defeated and slain gods. I haven't heard many stories of mortals killing immortals though, so by THAT hypothetical definition I assume that immortals can kill each other.
The whole point of this thread was to choose between:
*never feeling pain but dying at the end of a normal human lifespan
*feeling pain but living for eternity
The whole point of this thread was to choose between:
*never feeling pain but dying at the end of a normal human lifespan
*feeling pain but living for eternity
How do you know this? You didn't start the thread.
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-28-2009, 04:18 PM
That's true. Old age never killed, medically. Death by age is really more like a loss of breath or a stroke, or heart failure, some reason of that nature.
Regardless, historical invulnerables clearly age, and they eat and drink and sleep. Immortals don't need to, though greek gods are said to have done all of the preceeding.You know what the word "historical" means, right? As in, happening in history? But anyway, I can't think of any invulnerable people that weren't also immortal in mythology. If you cite Achilles, I will stab you for missing the obvious.
It can be assumed that the "hypothetical" definition of invulnerability, with disregard to its literal root definition, is the ability to survive a bullet, but not the ability to live forever, hinting that at some point the invulnerable MUST die.
No, invulnerable means "without vulnerability". Definition for vulnerability:
"vulnerability (plural vulnerabilities)
1. The state of being weak
Infants should be taken much care to get avoid from illness because of their vulnerabilities.
2. Susceptibility to attack or injury; being not well defended.
The country recognized their defense vulnerability after an airplane landed in front of the central square without any conscious. "
If you die of old age, you are clearly vulnerable.
Also, the immortal gods have killed each other. There's a wealth of god wars portraying defeated and slain gods. I haven't heard many stories of mortals killing immortals though, so by THAT hypothetical definition I assume that immortals can kill each other.
If you can die you aren't immortal. It's not my fault mythology can't be logically consistent. Also, quit adding redundant wording like "hypothetical definition." Words have no set meaning, all definitions are agreed upon by convention. The problem is that the root words have no connection to the concepts you and others are forwarding.
The whole point of this thread was to choose between:
*never feeling pain but dying at the end of a normal human lifespan
*feeling pain but living for eternity
That doesn't change the fact that the wording is silly and the definitions are clearly wrong.
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-28-2009, 04:20 PM
Since we're on a roll, let's have another "waht would u chooze..." thread.
Keep in a sharp eye open: Immortality and Invulnerability are not the same, but, which would you choose and what would you do with it is just what you want to post here.
Allright, let's spice 'em up with some alternative definitions, then:
Immortality: You can be killed and kill yourself, but will not die spontaneously, by disease or hunger.
Invulnerability: You cannot be killed or kill yourself, but you will die through eventual degradation, very slowly, (and possibly painfully).
Dr. McDoom's posts, as he's the one who started the thread. He defines (twice) his intended definition for invulnerability and immortality. So I do know what the point of this thread is, and THIS is how I know.
And so what if MY definitions are silly and wrong? It's no more your post than it is mine.
BestFly
01-28-2009, 04:45 PM
This is how I see it..
Immortality is based on not being able to die. Invulnerability is based on not being able to be hurt.
If we take the latter we need to set up guide lines on how much ground being Invulnerable actually covers. We can agree that it means that no external physical harm can be caused to that person. We can also assume that it means all of the persons internal organs and so on will remain perfect.
If we toss out mythology we can assume that this means that Invulnerables stop aging at a certain point. Age is linked to things like greying hair, loss of vision, mental disabilities, bone weakening, etc. If the person is Invulnerable none of these can happen so essentially aging stops. (most likely around the time the persons body reaches full development) Of course you are also immune to all disease and poisons.
This means that technically an Invulnerable can live forever, but there are conditions where he/she can die such as lack of oxygen, drowning, etc. Anything that prevents the body from doing what it needs to do that is not a disease.
Immortals are a little more difficult. To start we know it means immortality means not being able to die. However, technically this means that a person could go on living and aging forever. This is impossible as the body would eventually break down. Because of this we need to assume that the body again stop aging at a certain point, or maybe regenerates to preserve life.
Now we get into the tricky parts. Immortal does not mean you can't get hurt. What happens if you get zapped into trillions of particles? If we follow the standard before where the body needs to compensate for anything that might cause death (such as loss of a heart, brain, anything important) we have to assume that being zapped into trillions of particles is technically impossible since the body would have to regenerate instantly. (The person would still feel whatever pain was involved.) Besides things like body changing or anything like that regeneration is the only thing I can think of that let's someone be immortal but not invulnerable.
Same thing with say, smoking. A immortal will never die from smoking since if it ever got to a point where it would threaten his/her life the body must compensate. An Invulnerable is simple immune to any negative effects of smoking since his organs can not be damaged.
TacticianMark
01-28-2009, 06:04 PM
I agree with Chrono1219.
As for my answer to the original question of the thread, I'd pick to be invulnerable.
Diocletian
01-28-2009, 06:10 PM
And so what if MY definitions are silly and wrong? It's no more your post than it is mine.
AF is an Oligarchy, so one post of a moderator is worth 5 posts by a normal member. We are peasants, they're of wealth.
I'm pretty sure invulnerability would be higher than immortality. If you're Inv. chances are you can't be harmed from the effects of old age, car crash, etc. You still feel pain, so either way you're screwed.
Manhattan_Project_2000
01-28-2009, 11:50 PM
AF is an Oligarchy, so one post of a moderator is worth 5 posts by a normal member. We are peasants, they're of wealth.
I'm pretty sure invulnerability would be higher than immortality. If you're Inv. chances are you can't be harmed from the effects of old age, car crash, etc. You still feel pain, so either way you're screwed.
That's clearly not correct. I can think of quite a few moderators over the years who were base simpletons in these kinds of discussions, and worth very little. I can also think of a number of non-moderators who get plenty of respect when rattling their cane-sword in these sorts of threads.
Diocletian
01-29-2009, 06:38 PM
That's clearly not correct. I can think of quite a few moderators over the years who were base simpletons in these kinds of discussions, and worth very little. I can also think of a number of non-moderators who get plenty of respect when rattling their cane-sword in these sorts of threads.
I'm sure those members have been here alot more than Rubedo, _______ and myself to get their cane not broken by the younguns.
Cancre
01-29-2009, 06:47 PM
Invulnerability because i would jump of really high buildings and land flat on my face and then get back up , that'd scare the poop out of soo many people e.g
your walking down the the street *CRUNCH* and some person has landed on the ground making the most ugly body crunching sound , and then he gets right up and walks down the street .
thats almost as fun as having the ability to randomly explode .
Rubedo, the Crystal Blood
01-29-2009, 07:07 PM
You could do that with immortality. Granted you would get hurt, but wouldn't die. They could burn you and rip you to shreds and you'd still be alive.
ZukaxxMimozu
01-29-2009, 07:41 PM
That's clearly not correct. I can think of quite a few moderators over the years who were base simpletons in these kinds of discussions, and worth very little. I can also think of a number of non-moderators who get plenty of respect when rattling their cane-sword in these sorts of threads.
*coughLordoftheRantcough* ahem... sorry, but it's true:)
I would pick invulnerability because then, if this covers mental and physical, I would no longer be tortured by rude words and all that jazz.
Zanmato
01-29-2009, 08:18 PM
I'd have to say Immortality. Live forever, even if words and physical wounds do hurt, you know you'll never die....
*Tsuki*
01-29-2009, 08:45 PM
I would quite lonely if I was immortal, and it would be quite sad seeing people die all around me while I live forever. It would sadden me to no end that I am immortal while there are people in the world who are sick and they can't ever get better. They will die, and I will live, to walk on in my sadness.
So, I'd pick invulnerability. I need it anyways because I'm always trippping and hurting myself.
BDNguyen
01-29-2009, 08:47 PM
Well out of the two, I would pick immortality, because pain is a natural feeling that everybody experiences, I am curious about what the future holds, and I could educate the next generations with vast amounts of wisdom.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.