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

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#21

Post by zumicts »

corodra wrote: post #19
PyroLagus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should see a psychologist if you feel like that.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#22

Post by danans »

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.

Isn't this true for any organism, for varying definitions of "quickly" and "support network".

Compared to extremophiles like waterbears [1], most of us seem very fragile and dependent on our environment.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#23

Post by danans »

corodra wrote: post #17
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?

Are we talking about someone from Silicon Valley or an Alaskan bushman? The Alaskan could do it.

But without another person to share information with (genetic or cultural), he's a dead end.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#24

Post by dota_fanatic »

Since reading Christopher Alexander's Nature of Order series (verbose, probably could be trimmed down quite a bit), I find it much more natural to view everything as living to various degrees across all sizes / compositions of matter, which he argues for on a mathematical basis. Here's a snippet from the first volume, lifted from the linked wiki page:

> Centers are those particular identified sets, or systems, which appear within the larger whole as distinct and noticeable parts. They appear because they have noticeable distinctness, which makes them separate out from their surroundings and makes them cohere, and it is from the arrangements of these coherent parts that other coherent parts appear. The life or intensity of one center is increased or decreased according to the position and intensity of other nearby centers. Above all, centers become most intense when the centers which they are made of help each other.

Unfortunately, this perspective makes mankind's treatment of nature all the more repellent as the horror of our actions towards the rest of life (and ultimately, ourselves) is so, so self-defeating. We just can't seem to evolve past self-interest where self is defined by the boundary of our body / family / tribe. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Order

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#25

Post by corodra »

zumicts wrote: post #21
corodra wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should see a psychologist if you feel like that.

So, are you unaware of the mental health crisis that's been popping up in 1st world countries in the past, oh, I don't know, 10-20 years?

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#27

Post by toasterlovin »

danans wrote: post #22
saagarjha wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skin cells die rather quickly without their support networks.

Isn't this true for any organism, for varying definitions of "quickly" and "support network". Compared to extremophiles like waterbears [1], most of us seem very fragile and dependent on our environment. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

Yes, but multicellular organisms have evolved specifically to contain lineages of cells that form specialized tissue that allows them to better exploit certain ecological niches. These specialized tissues are only possible if the lineages of cells that make up the tissue specialize to a degree that makes them unviable on their own. That is categorically different from, say, a bacterial cell, which is evolved to exist and reproduce on its own.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#28

Post by empath75 »

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.

I think it’s worthwhile to distinguish a gear from a lump of rock though.

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#29

Post by dTal »

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…

Would your intuition on Alice change if we had herds of escaped Alices roaming the Serengeti, mining metals and quietly carving out a life for themselves? What if they were entirely carbon based, and constructed themselves out of natural biomaterials? What if they were also very small, and formed colonies on food that had been left out?

Re: Life ≠ Alive

#30

Post by cdirkx »

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.

Ants are estimated to be arround 20% of all terrestial biomass, so clearly they are succesful. And yet, can the ant survive without the colony? Many individual ants are so highly specialized they cannot survive by themselves. Queens cant forage for food or defend themselves, there are soldier ants with jaws so large they require others to feed them and worker ants cant reproduce. Even we humans, sometimes touted as nature's best generalist, have become more and more specialized as we organized in larger and larger groups. We require others to produce our food, keep the lights on and help us when we are sick, too old or too young. Sure there are still people who survive on their own, but that is becoming rarer every day. Is that really a criteria for being 'alive'?
Post reply on HN