Defining Life
The cluster centers on debates about the definition of life, questioning traditional biological criteria and considering edge cases like viruses, prions, machines, and superorganisms as potentially alive.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
It said "living things". If it said "sentient things", that'd be different.
This is very close-minded thinking, it's very possible life doesn't require cells
you have described only the biological component of existence, but being alive is more complicated than that
Do they fulfill our current definition of life?
We wouldn't be living things
What people calls 'life' is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to comment on HN - Mick & Rorty
There is a difference between being the most dominant species on the planet and being composed of living cells, resulting in breathing, aging, dieing, and reproducing. An organic thing should not be looked at in the same light as something that is not.
The trick lies in the fact that life forms have no obvious boundary. The fact that two creatures are two creatures, and not just a single creature is something that is just endowed to them by us humans. If one of the creatures dies, does it really die, or does the combination of the two creatures just loses half of its brain cells? That second view is just as valid. Hence, in that second view, nothing really ever dies; we (i.e., the universe) just lose brain cells. And, of course, we gain them a
"non-living self-replicating organisms" Sounds like a contradiction to me ;)
Yes, a biological machine. Just like us.