3 ms·

So how do you classify life?

by tshadwell 13y ago

burke 13y ago
> ...compulsion to shove things into neat little cubbies... > So how do you classify life? I believe that's the point.
- tshadwell 13y ago
  I'm sure the author means dislike for the current system for trying 'too hard' to classify life, not dislikes it entirely, or out goes our ability to describe life with words entirely, which I think you'll agree is a pretty important faculty.
pvnick 13y ago
Are you asking "how do you define life?" or "how do you separate organisms from each other?"? Regarding either question, I don't think anybody has a good answer, and that's what's so fascinating, because it really seems to be a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.
makmanalp 13y ago
Do we really need to classify it down to 8 taxonomic levels? At the last few levels I bet it tends to get really arbitrary. Or, we could have a variable-depth tree. Make it more specific only when you need to.
- quasque 13y ago
  It is variable depth - the main ranks also have ranks between them, with some denoted by super- and sub- prefixes to the major categories, and others of unnamed rank defined only by its position between two adjacent levels. The NCBI's taxonomy browser is good for exploring the various lineages, e.g. here is the data for humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&name=Homo+sapiens&lvl=0&srchmode=1&keep=1&unlock http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode...
baddox 13y ago
I think the underlying point is that while humans have an extremely strong (and undeniably useful) urge to classify things into clean groups, not everything lends itself to being so classified. The human urge to classify things is what makes possible paradox like the sorites paradox.
colinm 13y ago
1) Dead. 2) Alive. 3) Somewhere in between.
- SilasX 13y ago
  1) non-life: rocks, water, sand 2) definitely life: animals, plants, fungi 3) self-replicating systems that stay far from equilibrium for a substantial time: hurricanes, fire, Benard cells, viruses
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    3) One of those things is not like the others - the abstracted information and constructed envelope of a virus seems qualitatively different to me, since that structure doesn't depend on external factors for its basic coherence. +1 for mentioning Benard cells, did not know of those.

So how do you classify life?

burke 13y ago

> ...compulsion to shove things into neat little cubbies... > So how do you classify life? I believe that's the point.

tshadwell 13y ago
I'm sure the author means dislike for the current system for trying 'too hard' to classify life, not dislikes it entirely, or out goes our ability to describe life with words entirely, which I think you'll agree is a pretty important faculty.

pvnick 13y ago

Are you asking "how do you define life?" or "how do you separate organisms from each other?"? Regarding either question, I don't think anybody has a good answer, and that's what's so fascinating, because it really seems to be a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

makmanalp 13y ago

Do we really need to classify it down to 8 taxonomic levels? At the last few levels I bet it tends to get really arbitrary. Or, we could have a variable-depth tree. Make it more specific only when you need to.

quasque 13y ago
It is variable depth - the main ranks also have ranks between them, with some denoted by super- and sub- prefixes to the major categories, and others of unnamed rank defined only by its position between two adjacent levels. The NCBI's taxonomy browser is good for exploring the various lineages, e.g. here is the data for humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&name=Homo+sapiens&lvl=0&srchmode=1&keep=1&unlock http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode...

baddox 13y ago

I think the underlying point is that while humans have an extremely strong (and undeniably useful) urge to classify things into clean groups, not everything lends itself to being so classified. The human urge to classify things is what makes possible paradox like the sorites paradox.

colinm 13y ago

1) Dead. 2) Alive. 3) Somewhere in between.

SilasX 13y ago
1) non-life: rocks, water, sand 2) definitely life: animals, plants, fungi 3) self-replicating systems that stay far from equilibrium for a substantial time: hurricanes, fire, Benard cells, viruses
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  3) One of those things is not like the others - the abstracted information and constructed envelope of a virus seems qualitatively different to me, since that structure doesn't depend on external factors for its basic coherence. +1 for mentioning Benard cells, did not know of those.