5 ms·
> These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science. This accurately describes much of science... > My heart can exist in
by beambot 2y ago
> These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.
This accurately describes much of science...
> My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?
The cells that comprise your heart are very much alive, but they will die without support infrastructure. They live, they replicate, they die -- like every cell in your body. If I relocate you to the moon without support infrastructure, you would die too -- and yet (I think?) you are probably alive.
- staplers 2y agoBest argument I've heard for Gaia theory, intentionally or not.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoWe probably can keep a heart alive outside of body, through artificial means, for minutes, maybe hours - and I mean keep it functioning, not just chilling it to slow its death. It's plausible we'll learn to be able to keep it alive for days, months, years, decades. At which point we could say that the "supporting infrastructure" of the rest of a human body isn't necessary for the heart to be independently alive? What if we do it all on the Moon, or Mars? How does Gaia feel about it? We already know that it's theoretically possible, if not yet achievable in practice, to create artificial environments capable of supporting human life indefinitely - or, on a long enough timescale, bootstrap an independent, self-sufficient biosphere. The two are, in the limit, the same thing anyway. Or are we going to argue that human technology is, by extension through causality, a part of life on Earth, and therefore a part of Gaia itself? Is Gaia in all of us, and will it persist after Earth dies if humanity is still around somewhere else? All in all, I suppose the correct definitions of terms are the ones that are most useful in a given context :). "Categories were made for man, not man for the categories", and all that.
- staplers 2y agoAt which point we could say that the "supporting infrastructure" of the rest of a human body isn't necessary for the heart to be independently alive A human body would be supporting it, inside of itself or not. Similar to Earth and its "independent travelers" today.
- incompatible 2y ago"Very much alive," in the sense of being a living organism in their own right. By that standard, each cell in the human body can also be considered a separate living organism, simply cooperating with other humans cells in a complex way. It makes sense, since we have no problem identifying the trillions of bacteria cells living on or in the human body as separate living organisms.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago"Sperm and egg cells, known as gametes, fuse during fertilization to create a zygote. " Since all humans were just 2 cells at one point. It seems to follow that the entirely of the code for what a human is, is contained in just those 2 cells. Not just code for a finger. But even code for our deeply ingrained fear of snakes. Was just at one point contained in those 2 cells. Kind of blows your mind. If they are separate living organisms, then there seems something recursive about humans if they can be just 2 cells at one point.
- positus 2y ago[flagged]
- Jerrrrrrry 2y agoYou are correct and for this: you are not going to be rewarded for it. The cognitive dissonance is too strong, this entire subject should honestly be banned from HN.
- TheHegemon 2y agoAre miscarriages then involuntary manslaughter?
- nwienert 2y agoIf the miscarriage was caused by reckless or criminal negligence
- 2y ago
- colechristensen 2y agoThe final categorization is the least interesting part though. If we understand the origins and mechanics of how the once parasitic organism became an integral part of almost all complex life, does arguing the semantics of what label you put on it really add much value? To reframe it: what you’re really doing is arguing about the definition of alive. In this case my opinion is: who cares. I fail to see how expanding the definition or being precise here adds anything.
- opello 2y ago> does arguing the semantics of what label you put on it really add much value Refining the definition of something often helps provoke new understanding and tests of the limit of that refinement. It seems like a critical requirement in the "form a hypothesis" step of the scientific method.
- rgbswan 2y agoi might be wrong but corporations/institutions never sponsor R&D in all directions so framing/phrasing is vital. but, from a philosophical pov, I agree with you.
- opello 2y ago> If I relocate you to the moon without support infrastructure, you would die too -- and yet (I think?) you are probably alive. It seems to me that the alternative to people being alive quite quickly reduces to nothing is alive by way of information theory.
- lupire 2y agoLife is not binary.
- amelius 2y ago> This accurately describes much of science... It is more related to the philosophy of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
- Jerrrrrrry 2y agoMore like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
- partomniscient 2y agoBuilt with his grandfathers axe. P.S. I'm not implying his grandfather was Gimli even if Gimli theoretically had two grandfathers.
- HappMacDonald 2y agoOne might say "natural philosophy"
- svnt 2y agoNatural philosophy is what science was called before it was called science. The philosophy of science is something that has only existed since the practice of science became widespread.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]