Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life ≠ Alive

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#11

Post by NikolaeVarius »

lifeeeeee wrote: post #7
jawns wrote: post #4

I don't think the terms and definitions (life vs. alive) are the best possible for making sense of this topic. I think we can distinguish between: * A living cat * A dead cat * A cat's living or dead skin cell * A self-replicating 3D printer called Alice I don't like the term "life" to refer to both the living and the dead cat. It seems bizarre to have concepts of "living life" and "non-living life." I would rather s…

> It seems bizarre to have concepts of "living life" and "non-living life." So all the dinosaurs found on earth are not "life" according to your definition? If we found a bone on Mars, wouldn't all the press say "life found on Mars?"

No, bone could have come off-world.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#12

Post by dr_dshiv »

Are ideas alive? They are the replicating units, after all. The concept of capitalism is certainly alive and well.

Both genes and DNA are alive?Red blood cells are as dead as hair. But still as alive as a non reproducing grandma.

James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is relevant here -- even the earth's air is as alive as our body's the intercellular protein matrix.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#13

Post by dual_basis »

corodra wrote: post #9
cdirkx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the skin cell not an organism though? The definitions for 'organism' vary, but a common theme seems to be an interdependant system comprised of 'organs' with different specific functions that together form a greater whole. But is a cell not comprised of organelles? Mitochondia have their own dna and it is theorized that they were originally a seperate lifeform in a symbiotic relationship. The same goes for oth…

A gear, by itself, is not a machine. A skin cell, by itself, cannot function or survive as a living organism.

How long would the average human survive if placed in an environment with no other humans?

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#14

Post by jhedwards »

I think it's simpler and more general to consider that "life" simply refers to any member of a lineage of self-replicating cellular phenomena on Earth. Anything else is just a description of said phenomena.

Alive/dead seems to me to be a generic descriptor for any dynamic phenomena that has a limited time span. Stars that are actively maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium could be called "alive", planets with plate tectonics and atmosphere could be considered "alive", which is to say that they are a dynamic process that is still active. It just so happens that _life_ is also a dynamic process and therefore goes through a period of "alive" time followed by a state change where we become inactive and "die".

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#15

Post by [deleted] »

saagarjha wrote: post #6
cdirkx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the skin cell not an organism though? The definitions for 'organism' vary, but a common theme seems to be an interdependant system comprised of 'organs' with different specific functions that together form a greater whole. But is a cell not comprised of organelles? Mitochondia have their own dna and it is theorized that they were originally a seperate lifeform in a symbiotic relationship. The same goes for oth…

Skin cells die rather quickly without their support networks.

[deleted]

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#17

Post by corodra »

dual_basis wrote: post #13
corodra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gear, by itself, is not a machine. A skin cell, by itself, cannot function or survive as a living organism.

How long would the average human survive if placed in an environment with no other humans?

Are we talking about someone from Silicon Valley or an Alaskan bushman?

The Alaskan could do it.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#18

Post by PyroLagus »

dual_basis wrote: post #13
corodra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gear, by itself, is not a machine. A skin cell, by itself, cannot function or survive as a living organism.

How long would the average human survive if placed in an environment with no other humans?

With food and water, pretty long I'd say. Whether they'd stay sane is a different matter.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#19

Post by corodra »

PyroLagus wrote: post #18
dual_basis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long would the average human survive if placed in an environment with no other humans?

With food and water, pretty long I'd say. Whether they'd stay sane is a different matter.

Meh, we're still losing sanity even when around other people. Sanity is relative.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#20

Post by amelius »

To be even more pedantic: how do you distinguish between different instances of life? Do you require them to be a minimum distance apart? What if they are sitting right next to each other? Do you require them to be separable by a minimum distance? What if they need each other's presence (e.g. mother and unborn child)? Perhaps the only thing we can say for sure is that the universe is alive.
Post reply on HN