You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RolfAndreassen comments on Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: NancyLebovitz 09 December 2013 04:35PM

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

Comments (371)

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

Comment author: passive_fist 10 December 2013 01:14:49AM *  0 points [-]

As I said, you have to consider the system of parasite+host (plus any other supporting processes).

I think a lot of the confusion arises from people confusing objects with processes that unfold over time. You can't ask if an object is alive by itself; you have to specify the time-dynamics of the system. Statements like 'a bacterium is alive' are problematic because a frozen bacterium in a block of ice is definitely not alive. Similarly, a virus that is dormant is most definitely not alive. But that same virus inside a living host cell is participating in a living process i.e. it's part of a self-sustaining chain of non-equilibrium chemical reactions. This is why I specifically used the words 'chemical process'.

Comment author: kalium 10 December 2013 06:54:46AM -1 points [-]

So this is a definition for "life" only, not "living organism," and you would say that a parasite, virus, or prion is part of something alive, and that as soon as you remove the parasite from the host it is not alive. How many of its own life functions must a parasite be able to perform once removed from the host in order for it to be considered alive after removal from the host?

Comment author: passive_fist 10 December 2013 07:22:27AM *  0 points [-]

So this is a definition for "life" only

Precisely.

How many of its own life functions must a parasite be able to perform once removed from the host in order for it to be considered alive after removal from the host?

As the definition says. It must demonstrate non-equilibrium chemistry and must be self-sustaining. Again, 'simple forms of energy' is relative, so I agree that there's some fuzziness here. However, if you look at the extreme complexity of the chemical processes of life (dna, ribosomes, proteins, etc.) and compare that to what most life consumes (sugars, minerals, etc.) there is no ambiguity. It's quite clear that there's a difference.