asr comments on Dissolving the Question of Life - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: falenas108 14 June 2011 08:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: asr 15 June 2011 01:33:06AM 1 point [-]

I agree that it isn't that hard. But your definition doesn't quite do it. As written, your definition includes things that have died and things that aren't yet alive.

Dead plants and animals still have usable DNA for a while after death. If the tissues are preserved, sometimes it's a long while. And mostly, we don't think of spores or viruses as living things, but they certainly have DNA.

I would supplement your definition by saying that we refer to an organism as alive when its pieces are functioning in a coherent and mutually-dependent way to keep the organism as a whole alive. (Some fuzziness creeps in when you try to distinguish a composite organism from a collection of separate components...but I don't think that causes problems in practice.)

Comment author: [deleted] 15 June 2011 01:41:34AM 1 point [-]

Oh yeah, good call, dead things. You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the concept of "dead" might be even more fraught with vitalism than "alive" is.