[HN Gopher] The Animals That Exist Between Life and Death
___________________________________________________________________
The Animals That Exist Between Life and Death
Author : dnetesn
Score : 33 points
Date : 2025-04-17 01:05 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| ggm wrote:
| At some level, if you are capable of being revived, I think your
| death was prematurely reported, defined by being revived. But, if
| you are not revived from a quiescent state, now or into the
| future, is there a functional difference between being quiescent,
| and being dead?
|
| Down at the viral level, if they crystallise, they're stable. If
| they managed to get into rock in a crystallised state, how long
| would they remain stable? Do we define viruses as "not alive"
| now? or prions? or mitochondria?
| franze wrote:
| In my understanding, viruses are not alive, they are
| information gone wrong (for the recipient).
| tejtm wrote:
| from another understanding, all life is just virus that
| stumbled on this one weird self replicating trick.
| otikik wrote:
| The weird trick that polynucleotides don't want you to
| know!
| paulddraper wrote:
| Yes, canonically viruses are not alive.
|
| Though they are close.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| Is this different than wood frogs, whose heart freezes and stops
| beating until it thaws again?
| verisimi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Plants in general have much larger genomes than animals, and
| that's clearly a definition of complexity.
| oulipo wrote:
| 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
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| "Philosophers are still grappling with the idea that life and
| death may not be the only states of being."
|
| Death isn't a state of being. It is the _absence_ of being. When
| something dies, it ceases to be. It loses its identity as the
| thing it was. That's why, strictly speaking, when something dies,
| what we are left with is not a body, as only a living thing is or
| has a body, but the _remains_ of what was once alive. So, in the
| case of rotifers, if they are alive, either they are hibernating
| or suspended, or reanimation really is the instantiation of a new
| rotifer. I am curious what kind of metaphysics these philosophers
| are leaning into, or why "living thing" entails the actual
| function of respiration, metabolism, etc. and not just the
| potential for these things, for example. A rock has no potential
| for these, but a desiccated rotifer does. (Modern philosophy has
| a problem dealing with potentiality, so this is not necessarily
| surprising.)
|
| "At the time, fear of excommunication or condemnation by the
| Roman Catholic Church for publishing scientific observations that
| challenged Church doctrine impacted communication about new
| scientific findings."
|
| The perennial boogeyman of the Enlightenment. Publishing
| scientific findings did not get you excommunicated. Indeed,
| fundamental to Catholicism is the recognition that reason and
| faith cannot contradict. If a scientific finding could or would
| authentically contradict Catholic doctrine, then Catholicism
| would be undermined and there would be no meaning to
| excommunication. (Some will point to the punishment of Giordano
| Bruno, but he wasn't charged for his scientific findings ---- he
| was a crackpot ---- but for his heretical theology. Others will
| bring up Galileo, but again, he wasn't excommunicated and the
| whole affair concerned a decades-long conflict of a personal or
| political nature that Galileo himself enjoyed provoking and which
| ended with a cozy house arrest in his old age at a time when
| Protestants were burning witches in Northern Europe.) A tiresome
| cliche. Frankly, I'm not sure how rehydrated rotifers and
| tardigrades are supposed to threaten Catholic doctrine. Because
| someone used the word "resurrection"? So what? Sloppy thinking.
| lisper wrote:
| > Giordano Bruno ... was a crackpot
|
| Yeah. He though the earth revolved around the sun. Crazy,
| right?
| falcor84 wrote:
| > Death isn't a state of being. It is the absence of being.
| When something dies, it ceases to be. It loses its identity as
| the thing it was.
|
| How does that fit with clinical death followed by resuscitation
| in humans? At what point in time does a human cease to exist?
| Detrytus wrote:
| Well, if they were able to successfully resuscitate you that
| means that you weren't truly dead.
| neom wrote:
| Lazarus syndrome is an interesting read.
| pdonis wrote:
| This is what comes of trying to define binary, all-or-nothing
| categories in a world of continuous variation. Any sharp boundary
| you try to draw between "life" and "death" is going to have
| exceptions. Making heavy weather out of this, instead of
| recognizing "life" and "death" as approximate categories that are
| useful for many purposes but can break down at the edges, is just
| muddled thinking.
| justonceokay wrote:
| Sounds like most of philosophy
| pdonis wrote:
| I agree. I think it's telling that Bertrand Russell's History
| of Western Philosophy is basically entirely about how all
| those philosophers peddled nonsense masquerading as deep
| thinking. For example, here's his money quote about Kant:
|
| "Hume, with his criticism of the concept of causality,
| awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers--so at least he says,
| but the awakening was only temporary, and he soon invented a
| soporific which enabled him to sleep again."
| mathattack wrote:
| This!
|
| I was going to write the same thing. Life, Death, Alive, Dead -
| these are all terms created by humans to make sense out of the
| world. In reality it's about more life-like and less life-like.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-19 23:00 UTC)