this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
349 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

232 readers
10 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Man, all these biologists going on about cell structure are in for a rude awakening when we run into silicon based life forms. Or even Commander Data

[–] flora_explora 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A rude awakening? Maybe. But a fascinating one!!

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why can't they be fascinated and produce a universalisable definition now? How am I supposed to trust their opinion of whether a virus is alive if they can't even get Commander Data right? Commander Data is way easier to philosophically understand than a virus.

[–] flora_explora 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm unfortunately too much of a literal, analytical thinker to continue this line of joking. Maybe I don't even fall into the definition of life myself, who knows...

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not joking, I genuinely disagree with the mainstream classification of viruses and Commander Data is genuinely an important cultural symbol for these issues.

[–] flora_explora 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah OK, I couldn't tell. So what would you say would be a better definition and what would you like to see included? I'm not really familiar with Data, maybe some background would be helpful...

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Life is that which acts to secure its own existence or that of its kind.

[–] flora_explora 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hm, I see how this would be universal. But at how do you define 'secure its own existence'? Is the sun a living being because it keep on burning? Are some chemical reactions that preserve the environment they are happening in living beings? Are any cyclical reactions or maybe even the nutrient cycles or water cycles living beings? The more you get into the details of what life is and isn't, the more you see that it probably isn't a binary distinction between living and not living.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. Stars and fire are alive. They have homeostasis. They reproduce. They can even grow and evolve. You can give birth to a little fire with a spark and some tinder, and when it's older you can feed it kindling. Eventually when it's big and strong, you can give it a big log to eat. That seems alive to me.

I don't really get how the water cycle acts to secure its own existence, but if you can explain it you'll persuade me it's alive.

[–] flora_explora 1 points 5 months ago

Your whole basis for calling fire alive is to anthropomorphize it... Sure you can use human terminology for fire and feel it is alive. But then anything can be alive, even a painting, a stain on the wall or a single atom if you like.

Homeostasis is not a sufficient criterion for life and there is a certain quality that is different in entities that fall under the scientific definition(s) of life. Fire isn't even an entity in itself I would argue. Or how would you describe what is part of the fire and what isn't? It cannot evolve on its own either, it follows certain principles and won't evolve new ways to burn.