4 ms·

Why wouldn't seeds also be considered in the same category? Seeds also do not change or exhibit life, and can remain in that state for years, even centuries.

Why wouldn't seeds also be considered in the same category? Seeds also do not change or exhibit life, and can remain in that state for years, even centuries. But then, with water, they start to grow. Could it not be considered the same mechanism, except that as these organisms are simpler than seeds and retain their shape (ie do not grow and change) and it is possible for these microscopic creatures to revert to the initial 'seed state' then animated life repeatedly?

eh_why_not 2y ago
Seeds were also the first thing that came to my mind. I've always found it fascinating that I could plant many spice seeds (e.g. mustard) as long as their container said "not irradiated", and they would sprout and grow just fine, several years after buying them. I.e. they are still technically alive, and can stay as such for many years, which is just amazing life resilience. That said, > ...except that as these organisms are simpler than seeds... I wouldn't say any animal that can move around to be simpler than seeds. IMHO by any definition animals are a big jump up in complexity over plants.
- falcor84 2y ago
  Plants in general have much larger genomes than animals, and that's clearly a definition of complexity.
  - immibis 2y ago
    That just means they have less selective pressure to reduce it - possibly because they are simpler. Genome size isn't correlated much without complexity. Obviously it provides an upper bound, but a lot of genes are repeats.
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      Yes. You'll find that plants generally survive better after being irradiated, indicating that a lot of these genes are apparently not important.
      - falcor84 2y ago
        Large software systems also often have significant chunks of code that is only historical and/or "accidental complexity" and can be removed. But we would typically say that removing it is reducing the system's complexity, rather than that it wasn't complex.
        saagarjha 2y ago
        Genes are not maintained by people
oulipo 2y ago
Well, on any timescale, even rocks are alive. We're made out of star dust. Life is everything, it's just on different timescales, one long continuity

eh_why_not 2y ago

Seeds were also the first thing that came to my mind. I've always found it fascinating that I could plant many spice seeds (e.g. mustard) as long as their container said "not irradiated", and they would sprout and grow just fine, several years after buying them. I.e. they are still technically alive, and can stay as such for many years, which is just amazing life resilience. That said, > ...except that as these organisms are simpler than seeds... I wouldn't say any animal that can move around to be simpler than seeds. IMHO by any definition animals are a big jump up in complexity over plants.

falcor84 2y ago
Plants in general have much larger genomes than animals, and that's clearly a definition of complexity.
- immibis 2y ago
  That just means they have less selective pressure to reduce it - possibly because they are simpler. Genome size isn't correlated much without complexity. Obviously it provides an upper bound, but a lot of genes are repeats.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Yes. You'll find that plants generally survive better after being irradiated, indicating that a lot of these genes are apparently not important.
    - falcor84 2y ago
      Large software systems also often have significant chunks of code that is only historical and/or "accidental complexity" and can be removed. But we would typically say that removing it is reducing the system's complexity, rather than that it wasn't complex.
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        Genes are not maintained by people

oulipo 2y ago

Well, on any timescale, even rocks are alive. We're made out of star dust. Life is everything, it's just on different timescales, one long continuity