A new theory of evolution proposed that actually makes sense

[Emily Lake]

I don't know. What are the criteria for something to be alive, and are they bright lines?

 

[bilby]

I don't know. What are the criteria for something to be alive, and are they bright lines?

Many and varied; and no.

The very fact that there are many competing definitions of 'alive', all of which are hotly debated, is a good indication that the definition is arbitrary, and doesn't reflect a fundamental dichotomy.

For some reason, many people seem to be quite offended by the banal and demonstrably true idea that 'alive' is a fuzzy category with no clear boundary between its members and its non-members.

 

[Rhea]

Actually, it's a theory explaining why justifying abiogenesis isn't a sensible question. The claim is that the defining feature of life actually exists as a continuum of energy dissipation phenomena.

Yes, the continuum is huge and oft ignored. How does one even draw a line? Our definition of "life" (and "sentience") is a human-decided line that is only marginally better than any other line.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that one of the questions this raises (at least for me) is where life begins and non-life ends. What is the difference between a self-replicating machine and a living organism? At what point does a clump of complex molecules capable of reproduction actually constitute a living thing?

It's easy enough to say that a duck is alive and a rock is not. I've never been certain, however, whether or not a virus is alive.

So perhaps it's more of a spectrum and less of a bright line.

It's completely arbitrary. Wherever you draw the line is as good a place as any other. Whatever else argument you make is special pleading.

 

[Kharakov]

I think that one of the questions this raises (at least for me) is where life begins and non-life ends. What is the difference between a self-replicating machine and a living organism? At what point does a clump of complex molecules capable of reproduction actually constitute a living thing?

It's easy enough to say that a duck is alive and a rock is not. I've never been certain, however, whether or not a virus is alive.

So perhaps it's more of a spectrum and less of a bright line.

It's completely arbitrary. Wherever you draw the line is as good a place as any other. Whatever else argument you make is special pleading.

I'd say that a thought object isn't alive- it is part of something that is alive. The message this conveys is not alive, yet those that participate in its transmission are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's completely arbitrary. Wherever you draw the line is as good a place as any other. Whatever else argument you make is special pleading.

I'd say that a thought object isn't alive- it is part of something that is alive. The message this conveys is not alive, yet those that participate in its transmission are.

I do not understand how this is relevant?

 

[Malintent]

I'd say that a thought object isn't alive- it is part of something that is alive. The message this conveys is not alive, yet those that participate in its transmission are.

I do not understand how this is relevant?

If it is 'completely arbitrary' then such distinctions are relevant. Can we draw the line between a rock and a crystal? How would one argue where to draw that line if it was completely arbitrary?

 

[Emily Lake]

Same way we argue about where to draw the line between a planet, a planetoid, and an asteroid. By creating rules of classification that are arbitrary that make some sort of sense. We make arbitrary rules, then stick to them - "If it has X characteristic, then it's in B group". If it lays eggs and is warm blooded, then it's a bird. If it has nipples and is warm blooded, then it's a mammal. Then along comes a platypus and messes it all up until we can come up with a new definition.

Arbitrary doesn't mean random. It just means that it's based on a decision, not an unarguable fact of nature. It's not a definitive characteristic that makes for membership in the group; it's whether or not it falls on one side of a line or another, where someone pretty much just said "Here's the line, and we're sticking to it".

ETA: In this context, we're using this definition of arbitrary:

based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

So in this case, we mean that it was based on convenience, rather than an intrinsic characteristic.

We define the difference between red and orange based on consensus and convenience, rather than on some intrinsic characteristic that make red things necessarily different from orange things. There's not a naturally occurring division between red and orange, there's a smooth continuum of colors that run the spectrum between them. It's a matter of convenience in our classification system that defines one side of a wavelength line as red and the other side as orange.

 

[Kharakov]

I do not understand how this is relevant?

If it is 'completely arbitrary' then such distinctions are relevant. Can we draw the line between a rock and a crystal? How would one argue where to draw that line if it was completely arbitrary?

I didn't connect the dots for our fearless fishy smelling leader. I don't think it's arbitrary where we draw the line (well we could draw the line between 2 people... but it doesn't appear to be arbitrary outside of people as well).

Are the thoughts of an individual alive or are they simply part of an individual that is alive?

Is a rule set, such as the axioms of arithmetic, alive or are they simply rules that something alive follows?

In other words, I associate being alive with sentience or awareness of some sort...