and we aren’t a thing, we replace our matter constantly, hence the matter wave idea.
The point is that basically every definition will fail in some edge cases.
and it ends up being more about philosophy than biology,
the whole point is that there’s no biological definition for life. we have one for medical context (brain dead, but mostly depending if it can be reversed, as soon as/if we figure how to resuscitate a brain dead person, we will have another threshold for the definition).
I think there’s a really good infinite monkey cage episode about this, one of their best episodes, I think it’s “what is death” from series 8. not 100% sure. but it’s a great listen anyways
we aren’t a thing, we replace our matter constantly
Yes, as parts wear out they are replaced, but they aren’t single use. That is the nature of a system. As I said, a system can be considered a thing. Fire is not a thing, because it is not a system of reusable parts that interact with each other multiple times. It’s better described as a chemical chain reaction. Every molecule is used exactly once. However the illusion of continuity of the flame, can be useful at times to be considered alive. But it’s certainly not the most accurate label for fire.
it ends up being more about philosophy than biology, […] there’s no biological definition for life.
Agreed. Again, my definition has nothing to do with biology. Mechanical systems might be able to perform the actions of life. Even some software may be considered alive within it’s environment.
The issue at hand anyway, isn’t the line (zone really) between life and death, but the definition of a corpse. To me that seems pretty clearly the point when a system stops working to maintain itself, stops fighting entropy. The remaining structure of the system then starts to break down, falls apart into it’s constituent pieces. Corpse-ing is the process that starts, when the process of dying ends.
Biologists called themselves “The Study of Life”, some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.
I’m not sure you’re a good advocate for the sciences.
I also think you might have reading comprehension issues. I did explain, I think four times, how fire isn’t technically alive, but in certain circumstances it can be a useful analogy. I don’t know why you keep banging on that drum.
fire, isn’t alive. it isn’t biologically.
and we aren’t a thing, we replace our matter constantly, hence the matter wave idea.
The point is that basically every definition will fail in some edge cases.
and it ends up being more about philosophy than biology,
the whole point is that there’s no biological definition for life. we have one for medical context (brain dead, but mostly depending if it can be reversed, as soon as/if we figure how to resuscitate a brain dead person, we will have another threshold for the definition).
I think there’s a really good infinite monkey cage episode about this, one of their best episodes, I think it’s “what is death” from series 8. not 100% sure. but it’s a great listen anyways
As I said, life is unrelated to biology.
Yes, as parts wear out they are replaced, but they aren’t single use. That is the nature of a system. As I said, a system can be considered a thing. Fire is not a thing, because it is not a system of reusable parts that interact with each other multiple times. It’s better described as a chemical chain reaction. Every molecule is used exactly once. However the illusion of continuity of the flame, can be useful at times to be considered alive. But it’s certainly not the most accurate label for fire.
Agreed. Again, my definition has nothing to do with biology. Mechanical systems might be able to perform the actions of life. Even some software may be considered alive within it’s environment.
The issue at hand anyway, isn’t the line (zone really) between life and death, but the definition of a corpse. To me that seems pretty clearly the point when a system stops working to maintain itself, stops fighting entropy. The remaining structure of the system then starts to break down, falls apart into it’s constituent pieces. Corpse-ing is the process that starts, when the process of dying ends.
there, you’re getting too philosophical and abstract.
fire isn’t alive, isn’t cannot evolve, no evolution… and you’re definitely failing biology.
point is that the highschool definition is bs, no biologist uses it, yet you’re stubbornly stick to it like a contrarian.
Again. Alive isn’t biological.
You’re very hung up on only biological things being alive. Which is strange when you yourself said biology has not good definition.
Biology is the study is life.
If it is alive, it is under the purview of Biology.
what you’re doing, is trying to fit anything that fits the Highschool definition as alive. and you end up with chemistry rather than life.
You are very hunged up on highschool oversimplifications.
if fire is alive, would using a lighter count as abiogenesis?
Do you see how that doesn’t work?
Biologists called themselves “The Study of Life”, some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.
And fire is clearly chemistry and not biology.
We just study life and don’t bother with the definition, its a “you know it when you see it” kind of thing
I’m not sure you’re a good advocate for the sciences.
I also think you might have reading comprehension issues. I did explain, I think four times, how fire isn’t technically alive, but in certain circumstances it can be a useful analogy. I don’t know why you keep banging on that drum.
‘how fire isn’t technically alive’
Why not?
It fits all the high school definition?