3 ms·

Virus are simpler and have challenged the definition of life for a long time already. This article excludes virus from life because they lack ribosomes. Last t

Virus are simpler and have challenged the definition of life for a long time already. This article excludes virus from life because they lack ribosomes. Last time I checked, they are considered "not alive" when outside of a host, and "alive" when inside a host. About size: "Genome size varies greatly between species. The smallest—the ssDNA circoviruses, family Circoviridae—code for only two proteins and have a genome size of only two kilobases;[61] the largest—the pandoraviruses—have genome sizes of around two megabases which code for about 2500 proteins" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

threethirtytwo 11mo ago
The definition of life is also uninteresting. At its core it is just a vocabulary and classification issue. We humans invented the word life and we humans chose to make the word vague, confusing and differently defined among different people. An arbitrary vocabulary and definitional choice for a word “life” is not in actuality interesting to think about. Yet people get hung up about it as if it’s a philosophical problem. It is not a philosophy problem. The word is loaded and you’re simply spending an inordinate amount of time trying to define some made up boundary of what fits this category you made up. It is a communication problem disguised as deeper.
- pfdietz 11mo ago
  It's like the word "planet", ultimately a tired game of definitions.
- saikia81 11mo ago
  It is a question in philosophy. It is the difference between being considered a conscious being, and not. Since for now our definitions of a conscious being is tied to being alive (when is a human alive and not death?). So obviously it has implications on ontological questions. It fundamentally limits our understanding of what exists and just as important, why we exist.
  - dagss 11mo ago
    Are the concepts "conscious" and "life" linked at all? Bacteria, fungus and plants are not usually seen as conscious but are usually seen as alive. All conscious things are alive (unless AI is conscious) but not all alive things are conscious.

threethirtytwo 11mo ago

The definition of life is also uninteresting. At its core it is just a vocabulary and classification issue. We humans invented the word life and we humans chose to make the word vague, confusing and differently defined among different people. An arbitrary vocabulary and definitional choice for a word “life” is not in actuality interesting to think about. Yet people get hung up about it as if it’s a philosophical problem. It is not a philosophy problem. The word is loaded and you’re simply spending an inordinate amount of time trying to define some made up boundary of what fits this category you made up. It is a communication problem disguised as deeper.

pfdietz 11mo ago
It's like the word "planet", ultimately a tired game of definitions.
saikia81 11mo ago
It is a question in philosophy. It is the difference between being considered a conscious being, and not. Since for now our definitions of a conscious being is tied to being alive (when is a human alive and not death?). So obviously it has implications on ontological questions. It fundamentally limits our understanding of what exists and just as important, why we exist.
- dagss 11mo ago
  Are the concepts "conscious" and "life" linked at all? Bacteria, fungus and plants are not usually seen as conscious but are usually seen as alive. All conscious things are alive (unless AI is conscious) but not all alive things are conscious.