Immortal Spectrum

[muichimotsu]

I was discussing the immortality issue with a friend and I was able to formulate a few dichotomies that create important qualifications about the immortality discussion, especially as regards its metaphysics. There may be more, but these are pretty core so far as the subject goes

Material Vs. Immaterial-Whether the immortality is corporeal in nature or whether you have gone beyond the physical and have some sort of at least semi spiritual body.

Communal vs. Individual-Is the immortality a part of a large society or is it something an individual has, by one of many methods or traits associated with that state?

Innate vs. Innovation-Has the immortality always been a fact of life or has it come about by some outside source?

Permanent vs. Provisional-Can you never cease being immortal or is there a way to stop the state and render yourself dead?

Resistant vs. Nonresistant-This is probably one of the traits least thought about. Are you physically indestructible or even resistant to disease, or are you subject to all or most of the human weaknesses, but are simply unable to die naturally, such as the elves in Middle Earth?

 

[ElijahW]

Nice dividing.

I'm not sure what you are wanting to discuss or just putting this out but personally I would go with: Material, communal, innate, provisional and non resistant. All from a scifi perspective of a future resurrection.

 

[muichimotsu]

A future resurrection suggests that it is innovated, or at least imparted to us, so it isn't strictly innate. Everything else at least makes some sense, though I suppose you could be arguing on the basis that we have immortal souls and can choose "immortality in Christ" or not, which seems at least fair. Prospect of a future resurrection might be a more qualified phrasing

 

[ElijahW]

Yeah, as long as there is a body required then it can be destroyed but the prospect of a future resurrection could never go away as long as the universe existed.

I said innate because I took "outside source" to mean supernatural intervention. And I am going with us being in a fallen state with us at some point in our evolutionary history having a period of being immortal or something close to it, and those long lifespans is how an animal gained the intelligence that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The long lifespans left when we change our habitat and behavior but it could be a tweak of the dna that gets us back to immortal, but that could be what you mean by "innovation".

 

[muichimotsu]

Longevity is not the same as immortality by any stretch of the terms, so you seem to be wanting to have something that seems scientific, but it more fantastical. Innovation entails either some technological/scientific or supernatural intervention, so the only way yours would make sense is if it was even something remotely supported by Christian scriptures, which I'm a tad skeptical on, since the idea of the fall being physical and genetic in nature is seen as fairly fringe in Christian circles. The fall is more typically, from my understanding, seen to be an incorporeal adjustment instead of something physical.

 

[ElijahW]

It doesn't matter how fringe the interpretation is (which I have no way of knowing) it only matters if the interpretation of the fall is rational. Allegorical interpretation is based on an individual's understanding of the universe or what they assume the writers understanding was, and yes plenty of the church fathers interpret genesis from a more platonic way, but it doesn't really mean much other then getting other peoples view on what they think is going on there.

Immortal doesn't necessarily mean indestructible. Longevity, or not succumbing to the aging process is what makes someone immortal.

I'm not sure what you kind of immortality you mean by innate if any progress means innovation. Is there any way there can be a resurrection of the dead innately?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good categories.

Permanent vs. Provisional-Can you never cease being immortal or is there a way to stop the state and render yourself dead?

If I were to discover some way to become immortal, I would certainly want the "provisional" option. Putting aside the boredom issue, imagine having to live through a Big Bounce.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[muichimotsu]

Genesis as nonliteral seems to work better, especially if we consider the Jewish interpretation to have some weight, considering it's their text originally, not Christianity's.

Immortality and indestructibility don't necessarily overlap except slightly. Longevity is part of immortality, though having eternal youth is another overlapping category, since one could live forever while merely replacing organs and otherwise looking like an old person, unless we're talking about regeneration like a Time lord or other such entity.

Innate immortality means you are immortal from birth. Highlanders/Immortals have immortality as a potential and unlock it, for instance. Innate resurrection of the dead seems to clash with innate immortality in the sense of material immortality, since you'd necessarily have to die to have the resultant immortality, which would therefore not be an innate type.

 

[muichimotsu]

double post somehow-

 

[ElijahW]

Genesis as nonliteral seems to work better, especially if we consider the Jewish interpretation to have some weight, considering it's their text originally, not Christianity's.

I don't believe in the early Church Father interpretation of Genesis and was giving what I feel is the understanding of the Jewish intellectual community because I think the early church fathers were a bit to eager to align Jewish thinking with Greek philosophy. I don't think they are describing a spiritual existence into a material existence but an event in our history, if I give the benefit of the doubt to the writers then they are trying to present a rational understanding of how they came about without understanding the specifics of how it happened. Even now with a better understanding of the evolutionary process and genetics, our understanding of how it could happen wouldn't seem much more specific, than is presented in Genesis, when we actually understand how our intelligence came about.

Immortality and indestructibility don't necessarily overlap except slightly. Longevity is part of immortality, though having eternal youth is another overlapping category, since one could live forever while merely replacing organs and otherwise looking like an old person, unless we're talking about regeneration like a Time lord or other such entity.

I think the longer the timeline goes the more options and more refined the kind of immortality we are talking about is going to be.

Innate immortality means you are immortal from birth. Highlanders/Immortals have immortality as a potential and unlock it, for instance. Innate resurrection of the dead seems to clash with innate immortality in the sense of material immortality, since you'd necessarily have to die to have the resultant immortality, which would therefore not be an innate type.

Ahh, I didn't have the scope of immortality being talked about wide enough. I was limit the options of immortality for us, I don't think I wasn't including aliens who are immortal at birth.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't believe in the early Church Father interpretation of Genesis and was giving what I feel is the understanding of the Jewish intellectual community because I think the early church fathers were a bit to eager to align Jewish thinking with Greek philosophy. I don't think they are describing a spiritual existence into a material existence but an event in our history, if I give the benefit of the doubt to the writers then they are trying to present a rational understanding of how they came about without understanding the specifics of how it happened. Even now with a better understanding of the evolutionary process and genetics, our understanding of how it could happen wouldn't seem much more specific, than is presented in Genesis, when we actually understand how our intelligence came about.

Jewish understanding, from what I know, seems to be a more figurative interpretation: Adam and Eve's exile is a sort of progression into adolescence from childhood. The fruit wasn't of knowledge in general, but of good and evil, as I recall, so that's a specific which is relevant to the interpretation as figurative in ethical development instead of a literal event in history.

I think the longer the timeline goes the more options and more refined the kind of immortality we are talking about is going to be.

There are so many forms, the easier distinction is between material and immaterial: whether we have corporeal or incorporeal forms

Ahh, I didn't have the scope of immortality being talked about wide enough. I was limit the options of immortality for us, I don't think I wasn't including aliens who are immortal at birth.

Highlander 2's alien explanation isn't usually taken seriously in the slightest, even in the later series, from what I understand

 

[ElijahW]

Good categories.



If I were to discover some way to become immortal, I would certainly want the "provisional" option. Putting aside the boredom issue, imagine having to live through a Big Bounce.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Boredom has been a big driving fear in my life as well but I think that humans are surprisingly adapt at dealing with both boredom and finding ways to avoid it. So I believe that, even though I haven't got the hang of it, dealing with time is something that we all could adapt to if given enough time.

Living through the big bounce would be an issue. The only answer I've seen is that if an advanced race can retrieve the information from past events to resurrect the dead, then maybe an even more advanced race could retrieve information from the last time the universe expanded to resurrect the dead from that universe. On the Tv show Lexx I think this is where the prophetic powers came from but only watched a couple episodes.

The reason I see for desiring provisional existence is the ability to, what seems like jumping into the future, by deconstructing your body and having it resurrected in the future, when you think you would be more interested in what is going on. But it would take absolute certainty that something wouldn't happen to our species or ability to bring people back while you weren't around.

 

[ElijahW]

Jewish understanding, from what I know, seems to be a more figurative interpretation: Adam and Eve's exile is a sort of progression into adolescence from childhood. The fruit wasn't of knowledge in general, but of good and evil, as I recall, so that's a specific which is relevant to the interpretation as figurative in ethical development instead of a literal event in history.

There is no definitive interpretation, by Jew or anyone else. It only matters if the interpretation is reasonable or not, which varies from person to person and evolves over time.

From the wiki on Jewish views of evolution:
"If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense."

I don't think the knowledge of good and evil should be taken as literal event either, but as figurative language describing us gaining knowledge that distinguished us from the animals which they seemed to take to be relating to our morality. Same thing with the naming of things Adam does.

There are so many forms, the easier distinction is between material and immaterial: whether we have corporeal or incorporeal forms

That's a good division. The only real issue I have is that people understand immaterial and incorporeal existence so irrationally and infused with corporal properties that you really have to be careful to make sure that people know what they are saying when they refer to existence as incorporeal. You have to some way clarify that immaterial doesn't include dying and going to other realms where you interact with beings in a temporal way they just have different kinds of improved bodies.

Afterlife vs. Hereafter, may be a good divide to start with. Then you can divide the afterlife people into those who believe they go to a temporal place to interact with other beings and basically carry on life like you would here, and those who don't believe they will have no bodies to distinguish one from another, making life as we understand here, impossible there.

Highlander 2's alien explanation isn't usually taken seriously in the slightest, even in the later series, from what I understand

I'm not sure what the deal is, I couldn't read past seeing that Ryan Reynolds is doing the remake. What the current way his immortality is achieved?

I assume you consider the belief that we have an immortal soul that goes to heaven or hell after we die innate immortality. As well with reincarnation where we achieve some goal after enough lives and get to go to stay in the other realm?

 

[muichimotsu]

There is no definitive interpretation, by Jew or anyone else. It only matters if the interpretation is reasonable or not, which varies from person to person and evolves over time.

From the wiki on Jewish views of evolution:
"If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense."

I don't think the knowledge of good and evil should be taken as literal event either, but as figurative language describing us gaining knowledge that distinguished us from the animals which they seemed to take to be relating to our morality. Same thing with the naming of things Adam does.

That seems to suggest you think there's a literal garden of Eden, though, which is just as troubling as believing there was a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's a good division. The only real issue I have is that people understand immaterial and incorporeal existence so irrationally and infused with corporal properties that you really have to be careful to make sure that people know what they are saying when they refer to existence as incorporeal. You have to some way clarify that immaterial doesn't include dying and going to other realms where you interact with beings in a temporal way they just have different kinds of improved bodies.

Immaterial is a metaphysical qualification: it isn't physical or material in nature, pure energy might be a good way to put it, as opposed to being composed of matter at all.

Afterlife vs. Hereafter, may be a good divide to start with. Then you can divide the afterlife people into those who believe they go to a temporal place to interact with other beings and basically carry on life like you would here, and those who don't believe they will have no bodies to distinguish one from another, making life as we understand here, impossible there.

You could have material or immaterial bodies, so to speak, though that gets into what's considered a body in the discussion. If it has to be material to be considered a body, then any of the immaterial immortalities are disembodied.

I'm not sure what the deal is, I couldn't read past seeing that Ryan Reynolds is doing the remake. What the current way his immortality is achieved?

In the Highlander series, the idea seems to be that certain people have a seed of immortality which is awakened the first time they are mortally wounded. Then they are immortal, though they can't regenerate, it seems, which is demonstrated with the Kurgan's wounds on his neck. But they can be killed by decapitation, which is an important distinction, since otherwise they'd be completely immortal in the sense of not being able to die.

I assume you consider the belief that we have an immortal soul that goes to heaven or hell after we die innate immortality. As well with reincarnation where we achieve some goal after enough lives and get to go to stay in the other realm?

Reincarnation is virtual immortality, not actual. You don't stay in one body eternally, you keep changing. And the innate immortality of the immortal soul is different in that the body dies, so it suggests disembodiment and almost virtual immortality again in that you only achieve immortality truly once your body ceases to be.

 

[ElijahW]

That seems to suggest you think there's a literal garden of Eden, though, which is just as troubling as believing there was a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The point I have been trying to make is that this should be understood figuratively, and the sybolic language should be interperted as rationally as you can. The garden represents our original habitat. Where or what our original habitat is still questionable so we would still have to use either an educated guess or use figurative/symbolic representation, that acknowledges the specifics aren't known.

Immaterial is a metaphysical qualification: it isn't physical or material in nature, pure energy might be a good way to put it, as opposed to being composed of matter at all.


You could have material or immaterial bodies, so to speak, though that gets into what's considered a body in the discussion. If it has to be material to be considered a body, then any of the immaterial immortalities are disembodied.

I think there are a few words that you shouldn't use and expect others to have a consistent and rational understanding of, and both "immaterial" and "energy" are two of those words. "Energy" because even the best minds aren't sure what it is, and trying to understand it as being seperate from matter is going to be an issue that not many have considered, myself included. "Immaterial" because you are working with two distinct understandings of "immaterial". One produced by the philosphers, such as Plato and Aristotle; the other historically produced from taking figurative language about spiritual elements literally; today it's mostly from us basing our understanding on how spirital elements are portrayed on television.

This is why I think that maybe dividing the understandings of immortality by description, more than relying on some words that most people probably are going to have to good of a handle on. Maybe does the immortality occure here in this material world or some place else. The immortality here can be divided into contineus and non contineus, while the immortality there can be divided into existence that is similar to here or takes into account an existence where the change our bodies allows for doesn't exist. The buddhist cosmology (so says wiki) has both; one translated to the formless (Ārūpyadhātu) and form realm (Rūpadhātu).

In the Highlander series, the idea seems to be that certain people have a seed of immortality which is awakened the first time they are mortally wounded. Then they are immortal, though they can't regenerate, it seems, which is demonstrated with the Kurgan's wounds on his neck. But they can be killed by decapitation, which is an important distinction, since otherwise they'd be completely immortal in the sense of not being able to die.

But do we know the source of his immoratality or is that not relevent? You could replace him with wolverine and get back onto the human potential track.

Reincarnation is virtual immortality, not actual. You don't stay in one body eternally, you keep changing. And the innate immortality of the immortal soul is different in that the body dies, so it suggests disembodiment and almost virtual immortality again in that you only achieve immortality truly once your body ceases to be.

But from the immortal's perpective aren't those lives just going to look like the lifespan of a single immortal, even though from our pespective it was different people dying? The immortal living eternally some place else may relate to the individual living here like we relate to the individual that was in our mother's womb, as in hardly at all, but we still recognize that it was us or an immortal at an early stage, just not fully developed.

 

[muichimotsu]

The point I have been trying to make is that this should be understood figuratively, and the sybolic language should be interperted as rationally as you can. The garden represents our original habitat. Where or what our original habitat is still questionable so we would still have to use either an educated guess or use figurative/symbolic representation, that acknowledges the specifics aren't known.

Our original habitat was different, but it's hard to argue it was anything completely different from planet earth at some point in inhabitable history. About...20K years or so for an estimation if we're going to cro magnon ancestors

I think there are a few words that you shouldn't use and expect others to have a consistent and rational understanding of, and both "immaterial" and "energy" are two of those words. "Energy" because even the best minds aren't sure what it is, and trying to understand it as being seperate from matter is going to be an issue that not many have considered, myself included. "Immaterial" because you are working with two distinct understandings of "immaterial". One produced by the philosphers, such as Plato and Aristotle; the other historically produced from taking figurative language about spiritual elements literally; today it's mostly from us basing our understanding on how spirital elements are portrayed on television.

A fair point, since energy and matter are almost intertwined metaphysically and scientifically speaking

This is why I think that maybe dividing the understandings of immortality by description, more than relying on some words that most people probably are going to have to good of a handle on. Maybe does the immortality occure here in this material world or some place else. The immortality here can be divided into contineus and non contineus, while the immortality there can be divided into existence that is similar to here or takes into account an existence where the change our bodies allows for doesn't exist. The buddhist cosmology (so says wiki) has both; one translated to the formless (Ārūpyadhātu) and form realm (Rūpadhātu).

I used the terms for alliterative purposes first and foremost, so more detailed descriptions would be necessary if I were to continue with my idea of making this into a book of some sort

Material and immaterial is that distinction between a natural and supernatural quality of the immortality

Continuous and non continuous might fall under the Permanent and Provisional distinction in that one cannot end and one can.

But do we know the source of his immoratality or is that not relevent? You could replace him with wolverine and get back onto the human potential track.

The creators are fairly certain it's not a mutation, it could be, but they seem to want to keep it vague. It could be something supernatural, with the whole prohibition of fighting on holy ground, but the basic idea is that you die once and then you're immortal in that series

But from the immortal's perpective aren't those lives just going to look like the lifespan of a single immortal, even though from our pespective it was different people dying? The immortal living eternally some place else may relate to the individual living here like we relate to the individual that was in our mother's womb, as in hardly at all, but we still recognize that it was us or an immortal at an early stage, just not fully developed.

It's going to seem like stages in one's life, not an immortal life, since that would be a life that never ends. The idea is interesting when you think about it, if one life of 100 years amounts to maybe 2-3 years for an immortal in perspective. Or even just one year.

 

[ElijahW]

Our original habitat was different, but it's hard to argue it was anything completely different from planet earth at some point in inhabitable history. About...20K years or so for an estimation if we're going to cro magnon ancestors

No, I'm not suggesting anything other than the earth for our habitat, nor am I suggesting anything unnatural about us during that time. The only thing special I am suggesting about us is that we had prolonged lifespans. How close to immortality we are talking would require knowing the specifics and a clear definition of immortality.

Nature/evolution is a process of building better and better machines. Machines that are more and more adapt at surviving in it's environment. Eventually after enough trial and error we can expect that a machine that can survive indefinitely in it's environment to be produced. Not just any machine because trees and plants can live indefinitely but an animal capable of processing new information, in order to increase it's intelligence.

If there was ever a species of animal that had the ability to increase it's intelligence due to the amount of time it was given alive, then we would see an animal that was similar to us; as in complete and clear dominance over the other animals on the planet.

This dominance is also the explanation of why we are no longer immortal, because our new intelligence gave us new options. Not only in what we could eat or where we could go but also in how we lived in our current environment, like housing and clothing. What exactly was the downfall is uncertain because we don't know what exactly led to the long life spans in the first place.

The folks that believe that we are in a fallen state can be broken down into two groups. Those who believe the individual can re-live like we were and recapture some of that longevity, and those who think we are screwed and need to find another way to immortality, like establishing a kingdom that leads to the resurrection of the dead in the future.

A fair point, since energy and matter are almost intertwined metaphysically and scientifically speaking

I used the terms for alliterative purposes first and foremost, so more detailed descriptions would be necessary if I were to continue with my idea of making this into a book of some sort

Material and immaterial is that distinction between a natural and supernatural quality of the immortality

I was suggesting there needs to be a distinction between the immaterial, that accounts for the two distinct kinds of immortality that is being discussed. One that is more supernatural and one that accounts for not having a body.

Continuous and non continuous might fall under the Permanent and Provisional distinction in that one cannot end and one can.

Oh, yeah totally, permanent/provisional can cover continuous and non continuous. Maybe this could be the further distinction of the material/natural immorality if we can safely assume that all immaterial immorality is going to be permanent.

It's going to seem like stages in one's life, not an immortal life, since that would be a life that never ends. The idea is interesting when you think about it, if one life of 100 years amounts to maybe 2-3 years for an immortal in perspective. Or even just one year.

How would the Buddhist form/s of immortality fall down your immoral spectrum?

 

[muichimotsu]

No, I'm not suggesting anything other than the earth for our habitat, nor am I suggesting anything unnatural about us during that time. The only thing special I am suggesting about us is that we had prolonged lifespans. How close to immortality we are talking would require knowing the specifics and a clear definition of immortality.

Immortality and increased longevity are related, but one is a more permanent form than the other.

Nature/evolution is a process of building better and better machines. Machines that are more and more adapt at surviving in it's environment. Eventually after enough trial and error we can expect that a machine that can survive indefinitely in it's environment to be produced. Not just any machine because trees and plants can live indefinitely but an animal capable of processing new information, in order to increase it's intelligence.

The difficulty is the environment we have includes bacteria, viruses, etc, so our resistances can't catch up as well

If there was ever a species of animal that had the ability to increase it's intelligence due to the amount of time it was given alive, then we would see an animal that was similar to us; as in complete and clear dominance over the other animals on the planet.

Animals don't usually survive in evolutionary terms because of intelligence, but because of function and form. Instinct is more commonly how they survive, but adaptation does play a role

This dominance is also the explanation of why we are no longer immortal, because our new intelligence gave us new options. Not only in what we could eat or where we could go but also in how we lived in our current environment, like housing and clothing. What exactly was the downfall is uncertain because we don't know what exactly led to the long life spans in the first place.

Science doesn't seem to suggest our ancestors were any more long lived. Lifespan might have been 30s for someone who survived past the first generation of their offspring.

The folks that believe that we are in a fallen state can be broken down into two groups. Those who believe the individual can re-live like we were and recapture some of that longevity, and those who think we are screwed and need to find another way to immortality, like establishing a kingdom that leads to the resurrection of the dead in the future.

I don't want to capture longevity so much as make it remotely possible. But immortality is markedly different in virtually any iteration, since it involves going against a basic process in nature of death and life in a cycle

I was suggesting there needs to be a distinction between the immaterial, that accounts for the two distinct kinds of immortality that is being discussed. One that is more supernatural and one that accounts for not having a body.

Supernatural and not having a body can overlap, but they are not absolutely the same, I agree. It's just more pseudoscientific/science fiction that gets into natural existence without a body

Oh, yeah totally, permanent/provisional can cover continuous and non continuous. Maybe this could be the further distinction of the material/natural immorality if we can safely assume that all immaterial immorality is going to be permanent.

It doesn't have to be, but this depends on where the immaterial immortality came from. If it's from a deity that has limits, perhaps we could stop it because of a failsafe in the immortality given to us. But if it's an omnipotent deity, perhaps we cannot stop it at all.

How would the Buddhist form/s of immortality fall down your immoral spectrum?

Not sure if there's a material form of immortality in buddhism. Maybe in Daoism or the like, but Buddhism's "immortality" might be the rebirth notion, albeit the idea of familiarity with prior rebirths is something usually reserved for bodhisattva/bosatsu, I'd imagine.

 

[ElijahW]

Immortality and increased longevity are related, but one is a more permanent form than the other.


The difficulty is the environment we have includes bacteria, viruses, etc, so our resistances can't catch up as well

Animals don't usually survive in evolutionary terms because of intelligence, but because of function and form. Instinct is more commonly how they survive, but adaptation does play a role

Science doesn't seem to suggest our ancestors were any more long lived. Lifespan might have been 30s for someone who survived past the first generation of their offspring.

I don't want to capture longevity so much as make it remotely possible. But immortality is markedly different in virtually any iteration, since it involves going against a basic process in nature of death and life in a cycle

If you have a more rational explanation for where our intelligence came from than long life spans then let me know but the scientific community not believing it isn't much of an issue because I'm not sure how the scientific community would know the human was 30 or 300, other than looking at the signs of aging, which in this discussion we are suggesting at some point we overcame. It's not like they can check the handful of skeletons they have to see if they have the genetic code for immortality because we don't know what that would look like.

I totally agree that immortality has to be more then just longevity and I'm not sure if that is the point we were at but as an explanation for our intelligence I think that is the most rational I have heard of so far. Which to be clear is a product of our longevity, not the the other-way around. Intelligence is what got in the way of function and form, and that is what brought back death.

Supernatural and not having a body can overlap, but they are not absolutely the same, I agree. It's just more pseudoscientific/science fiction that gets into natural existence without a body

It doesn't have to be, but this depends on where the immaterial immortality came from. If it's from a deity that has limits, perhaps we could stop it because of a failsafe in the immortality given to us. But if it's an omnipotent deity, perhaps we cannot stop it at all.

I think if it is actual immaterial we are speaking of then the all powerful sky genie isn't an issue since that belongs to the supernatural understanding. If the existence is supernatural or material in existence then others certainly could force you into existence, no all powerful deity required.

Not sure if there's a material form of immortality in buddhism. Maybe in Daoism or the like, but Buddhism's "immortality" might be the rebirth notion, albeit the idea of familiarity with prior rebirths is something usually reserved for bodhisattva/bosatsu, I'd imagine.

I wouldn't have thought so but the wiki said otherwise, though I'm not sure where or when that cosmology is coming from. But you can just go with what your understanding is to see if the categorizations work well for your understanding of Buddhism immortality.

 

[muichimotsu]

If you have a more rational explanation for where our intelligence came from than long life spans then let me know but the scientific community not believing it isn't much of an issue because I'm not sure how the scientific community would know the human was 30 or 300, other than looking at the signs of aging, which in this discussion we are suggesting at some point we overcame. It's not like they can check the handful of skeletons they have to see if they have the genetic code for immortality because we don't know what that would look like.

A fair point, but the idea is still that with diet as it was back then, not to mention probably no real medical care, people probably had fairly average health at best.

I totally agree that immortality has to be more then just longevity and I'm not sure if that is the point we were at but as an explanation for our intelligence I think that is the most rational I have heard of so far. Which to be clear is a product of our longevity, not the the other-way around. Intelligence is what got in the way of function and form, and that is what brought back death.

So in order to live forever, by this notion, we need to be less intelligent, it seems.

I think if it is actual immaterial we are speaking of then the all powerful sky genie isn't an issue since that belongs to the supernatural understanding. If the existence is supernatural or material in existence then others certainly could force you into existence, no all powerful deity required.

The supernatural doesn't have to involve coercion necessarily

I wouldn't have thought so but the wiki said otherwise, though I'm not sure where or when that cosmology is coming from. But you can just go with what your understanding is to see if the categorizations work well for your understanding of Buddhism immortality.

Some of it has to do most likely with Buddhist metaphysics, which I'm only somewhat familiar with.