Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jawns | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jawns

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 say "living organism" and "dead organism," the latter of which implies that at once point it was a living organism.

And the cat's skin cell is not an organism at all; it is a living (or dead) _part_ of an organism.

Alice, on the other hand, is not an organism or a part of an organism. I would not use the same term for Alice as I would for biological life. Philosophically, does Alice constitute artificial life? Maybe. But calling Alice "living" with no qualifiers seems off.

View on HN

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 other specialized structures like chloroplasts in plants. On the other end of the spectrum, would we classify groups or societies as organisms, with individuals carrying out specialized purposes? Is a society, nation or company alive? Perhaps not in the biological sense we commonly use the words, just like Alice. But that might just be our own carbon-based bias ;)

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.

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.

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

And?

The mental exercise was if a human could last a significant time away from the aid of other humans. Not if one human can continue humanity.

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.

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?

I am, that's why I'm suggesting you seek professional help.

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

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'?

Then your argument train of thought stops at the station of "there is one ant organism" and "there is one human organism".

Yes, the inherent ability of surviving on one's own is important. An ant can. A Silicon Valley software engineer can. A Wall Street hedge fund manager can. However, it will not be long. Mostly due to their stupidity. Don't base disconnection of survival needs and general societal stupid as a way to define "alive" as well. The specialization factor creates ecosystems. Ecosystems are not organisms. We can draw parallels, yes. There are plenty of fun parallels. The same way we can draw parallels to galaxy clusters and the way an eyeball iris structure is formed. But let's not be silly about it. This is literally the joke Douglas Adams was making in Hitch Hiker's Guide. We are all not one big computer (organism) with one goal.

What I'm trying to understand is the desperate want for "machines are alive" argument. It's now come to the point that a dead cat should be considered alive and a functioning human is now not alive? This is some serious post-modern logic that just blows my mind.

Let's take it a step further. So an ant can't survive long outside of a colony, it's not alive. If you pull a fish out of water and it can't survive long, then it was never alive to begin with? But since some people can't survive in Alaska by themselves (or anywhere else isolated), that means humans aren't alive. Perhaps isolate someone by shoving their face in water and they end up not surviving long, they were never alive anyways. Because they couldn't survive outside their environment. Like an ant to a colony. Love to see that logic used in court. Oh but, because we still have the corpse, the person should still be considered alive, thus there was no murder to begin with.

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?

> 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?"

They are not life anymore.

They WERE life.

The English language has mechanisms to differentiate past and present. Ignoring those mechanisms do not prove points.

No, bone could have come off-world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com