ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2022
- Biologists have been trying to define life for millennia. Maybe it's time to stop, and try something else.
Twitter: / subanima_
Instagram: / subanima_
Website (and mailing list): subanima.org
SOURCES + FURTHER READING:
www.subanima.org/definitions/
#whatislife #lifeonmars #nasa
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 6 // G2 vs GEN | 100T vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M6jxF80AajI/mqdefault.jpg)
It's like with soup - in my country, we have a saying: "soup doesn't have a definition to be honest".
We all can identify things that are and aren't soup, but we can't construct a single definition that apply to all kind of soup, but doesn't also apply to not-soup fluids, like tea or gulasz or even the ocean. That's because soup is a nonscientific construct based only on our cultural notion of what soup is - perhaps it is simmilar with life itself.
Anyway, great video, very inspiring. Hope you have a nice day!
That's a great analogy, and I would agree it does seem to be similar to life. Though some philosophers argue that life is a 'natural kind.' That is, life is more like the element hydrogen or something that is just out there in the universe. Natural kinds exist without our own cultural notions and without human language needing to describe them. (Here's a link for more info: plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/)
Personally, I don't think life will ever turn out to be a natural kind and I do think it is a lot more like soup. Thanks for watching!
Cereal is soup imo
@@meljXD2Monster.
cereal is not soup!! 🤣@@meljXD2
Exactly. Cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance .
I'm shocked at the low number of views given how good this video is. I came for the aliens on mars, and stayed for the existential questions.
Found it odd that there are words we use everyday on that we have no definition. Guess it's better to think of it as words that we have no agreed on definition.
Yeah language is really welrd
Such is life
it truly is incredible how many terms we use today have no universally agreed upon definition. some examples would be: what is a tree? what is gender? what is a city? what is law? or even, what is a chair? i really enjoy reading about it and i still have no answers. but if this topic interests you, try reading on floating signifiers, rhizomes or fuzzy concepts. i guarantee you, this is a rabbit hole in which you’ll spend hours, if not years, trying not to just grasp the concept, but see where it stems from, what other concepts were developed and proposed, what are other ideas the thinkers spend time on (not only in science, but in psychology, philosophy, linguistics, legal theory), and what you can learn using that
Apart from that one vsauce video do you have any recommendations on where to start?
This guy is just a hard skeptic / semanticist, but that’s GOOD! We need more like him because we can’t refine our models until we acknowledge their faults 🙏
the question itself is also flawed being only yes or no, not partly. like the pluto being a planet but then big astroid debate becoming simple when you consider proto planets
Once again, a very nice video. Topic wise, your last two videos have been way better than all the fluff that is out there. Keep up the good work!
And thanks once again!!
Amazing video! I've had the belief for a while that there's a blurry boundary between life and non-life. You very clearly articulated the nature of that ambiguity.
In another video you made the point that it would do us good to see some biological processes teleologically, through the lens of an organism's agency. But if there isn't a clear distinction between the organism and the non-organism, might we also see some "non-living" systems with agency too? I wonder what that might look like. What is a candle, or a crystal, or water, or the sun, "trying" to do?
I like Joscha Bach’s definition of life, he defines life as a system with a lot of information and high complexity.
That's fine but just like all the definitions I talked about in the video, it isn't perfect ;). Would the stock market be alive then? Our global atmosphere? What about the solar system, it's also pretty chaotic?
@@SubAnima sorry, i misremembered joscha’s definition. he actually defines life roughly around cells. but I still like the information definition. 1) something like a weather system, while it’s very complex doesn’t store much information, and 2) i like that the definition includes the stock market. (if anything, the stock market is to humans as humans are to cells)
Right, but how do we know extracellular life isn't made of something other than cells? And what do you mean by 'information'?
Not trying to be annoying here haha. Just fun to stimulate some back and forth discussion :) My first complaint here is respective of the "N=1 problem" which in short says how are we supposed to come up with a general theory of life if we only have one example (the one derived from LUCA). Second, information in biology has been a forever slippery concept that is difficult to pin down: petergodfreysmith.com/InfoBio-PGS-CUP07.pdf
@@SubAnima I’m not done reading the paper yet (i’m only on page 8) but i think the author was too quick to dismiss shannon’s conception of information as a valid means of defining life.
They say it is an insufficient definition because using pure shannon information provides no separation between biological and non-biological chemistry (fire and weather systems should be included)
i would argue that since all biology is ultimately chemistry, you will never be able to draw a hard line between the living and the dead. the best you could do it sketch a soft gradient (fire is less alive than bacteria which is less alive than john cena which is less alive than the stock market).
in this way i think shannon information density and scale is a valid definition that could serve us well in searching for alien life.
as for the n=1 issue, you’re right, ultimately we have no way of knowing which definition is the best, but if i had to pick any, i would like for it to a) be robust enough to be able to actually spot alien “life” and b) he able to act as a valid definition of life on earth.
i think this definition checks those boxes pretty well, so i’ll stuck with it unless you can convince me otherwise
I think I'd agree with your second point, that drawing a line between the living and the dead might eventually prove to be a non-starter. The gradients you mention certainly seem to be good candidates for this view. As for whether Shannon information is applicable in biology, I'm still unsure, I'm yet to really be convinced either way. David Krakauer and co. certainly provide a nice example which i discussed towards the end of this video: th-cam.com/video/vaJcmWjMNwo/w-d-xo.html
Personally I don't think there is anything disastrously wrong with your definition. Nor do I think any of the definitions I talked about in the video are wholly wrong. But none are perfectly correct either. I think the best way out would be to search for alien life with a tentative collection of definitions and perspectives which could be expanded/improved as we find different pieces of evidence. I don't think we will ever find one, be all and end all definition of life. In short, we should embrace pluralism!
I like the idea of jus vibin and doing research around without a lot of critirea
Also, I noted that books on the nature of life and life's origins (by Nick Lane & Carl Zimmer) made cameos in the video. That's a nice touch. If you have the chance you should check out Eugene Koonin's book (The Logic of Chance).
Haha glad someone noticed ;) I will definitely check it out!
Well from my understanding is that they needed a 'definition' because they can't haul every single piece of lab equipment to Mars. So they 'had' to come up with a definition/test that would, from their point of view have the most chance of success.
Not sure if you'll ever read this but: Can you make a video on how or why viruses are considered or not considered to be alive ?
I have a praying mantis with crystals in its enclosure.
Self-replicating molecules close the gap between life and non-life. Actually that distinction is false. Life is a subset of all the possible chemical interactions while chemistry is the physics of electron orbits.
Using your lack of criteria or a checklist for life, which I agree has huge limitations and problems, we then can’t design experiments for our space missions because instruments need precise instructions to carry out any investigation. That would mean we couldn’t even look for life.
I think that instead we have to admit that we don’t have good criteria but we won’t get better criteria by not looking either, so we try to envision better experiments that DO check for life as currently understood and maybe as imagined, but allow that a negative result would not show complete lack of life but only the lack of life that we understand.
Crystals may eject disorder during their formation, but they don't do so continuously after they're formed. My opinion here is that throwing out the reproduction line item is inappropriate. All life reproduces in fashion, even if that mechanism fails in some cases. Focusing on the mule at the leave of a tree of horse life isn't a good move. That mule was a process of reproduction - that's enough to qualify it as alive.
I think you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be.
cells in the mule are constantly reproducing
@@Rahul_G.G.Excellent point.
Great content 🎉
Thanks 😊 !
I think “life” is the process of anergy exchange thought an entire ecosystem.
And the ecosystem is the life. the organisms within it are both the mechanisms of exchange and the energy being exchanged (food).
As organisms change over time, it creates ripple effects throughout the ecosystem where everything adapts to better maximize their own individual energy exchange. Basically, organisms come and go, species come and go, but the system persists. And that “system” is what life is
Possible definition for life:
1. Life catalyzes the conversion of matter and energy into its own form.
2. Life adapts its form non-trivially and over many parameters in a way that facilitates such an autocatalytic function.
Fire: autocatalytic but only trivial adaptation of a handful of parameters.
Gravity: autocatalytic but only trivial adaptation of a handful of parameters.
Crystals: autocatalytic, medium ability to adapt.
Evoloop: autocatalytic (sort of..), limited adaptation in practice.
Prion disease: autocatalytic, substantial ability to adapt.
Virus: autocatalytic, massively adaptible, definitely alive.
what is a evoloop?
It is a replicator capable of simple darwinian evolution within a 2D cellular automaton. They introduce mutations as they bump into each other. However, most of them end up just evolving to be really small and efficient which means they tend to lack meaningful diversity and end up always evolving to the same 3 or 4 forms.
The boundary between 'life' and 'non-life' is starting to become hazy when considering Deep Sea Alkaline Vents as a possible source of Abiogenesis. I would recommend Nick Lane's book "The Vital Question". Also don't forget that crystals grow and reproduce: Linnaeus very nearly categorised them into his classification system.
This vid made me wonder if there are ongoing experiments trying to cause silicon abiogenesis
What are your thoughts on mark bailey's a farewell to virology? Have you read it?
In 2024 we will get the follow up to "Dumb and Dumber" - "The Dumbest"
Why no follow up repeats of this experiment or improved versions of these experiments? Its been decades and several visits later and no further work was done to figure out what was up with the viking experiments!?
I see everything as life. Life is, in my eyes, perhaps describable as "the process of change".
So instead of asking "Is there life on mars?" we should be asking "What does life on mars look like?".
How do things change on mars? That's martian life.
Life is that which exerts will.
So depressed people aren't alive ?
💯
Perhaps a good definition of life is that it is a system that can apply John Boyd's OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide ,and Act to its own ability to self exist.
So a rock can observe and react but not Orient, decide and then act, though in one sense it does not even observe but rather is simply acted upon and thus is a matter of merely action (on the rock) and reaction (by the rock).
A computer can execute the OODA loop but not (so far) to sustain its own existence but rather to perform certain predetermined tasks.
And even a single cell can it seems orient, decide , and act rather than just react in that it can employ many different criteria to determine how its acts.
Thus an OODA loop implies some notion of purpose, that guides the process of observation, orientation, decision, and action, that purpose being (in part) self preservation.
Thus a rock has no sense of purpose as it needs to keep being a rock while even the simplest organism seems to have that as one of its guiding purposes.
And in regard to OODA loops one can think of several being nested, i.e. say an inner loop being for a single cell, a loop at the organ level, say to control the heart, and middle loop being for a single organism as a whole, and perhaps even an outer loop for the action of many organisms such as a flock.
Thus these might run at different rates, the cell in milliseconds, the organism a bit slower, and the social even a bit slower.
And even the organism might have a few nested loops such as the reflexive loop, one that controls directed immediate actions, and another that plans for the future.
And these loops can also interact with the loops inside them and the one they are inside so that information flows around each loop and between the loops as well.
And each has its own functionality , i.e. some sense of purpose, where a rock has no sense of purpose, not even to be a rock.
And I might add that this seems to be one of the differences say between a physicist and an engineer. in that a physicist just looks at action and reactions while the engineer deals with purpose and functionality as well as desired properties such as efficiency and robustness and such.
thus purpose does not just apply to functionality such as sight, locomotion, reproduction and such, but also to exhibiting desired properties such as adaptability, resilience, survivability, and such.
And a rock has none of these, even if it by its nature is p[pretty resilient to change, that being by its physical properties and not due to any sense of purpose or decided actions.
I might also note that a physicist might argue that any sense of purpose ultimately is just some mechanism that is driven by action and reaction and thus the notion of purpose is largely illusionary, being merely an emergent property.
But one can argue that emergent properties are real, and that they being emergent are thus largely independent for the thing form which they emerge, in the sense that that could just as well emerged form some other thing.
Thus an Excel spreadsheet does not care if the computer in which it runs uses silicon or germaniums transistors, only that the instruction set operates mostly the same. Thus the Excel spreadsheet is more than just some emergent behavior for silicon and copper and such in that it could just as well be germanium and silver or even mechanical relays, albeit the latter would be a bit clunky and slow.
Thus there seems to be a limit to the idea of reductionism which BTW, the Dutch philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd tried to charectized as modal aspects, where the higher modal aspects include the lower but cannot properly be reduced down to them, and in fact the biotic was one of his modal aspects at that!
Another thing is, if we found alien organisms that underwent progressive adaptation and change, but in a way that was utterly unlike Darwinian evolution, we would normally want to call them life. Right, take an acellular organism, give it the ability to break down functional proteins, interpret their behavior through a battery of tests in a sandboxed part of the organism, and create perfectly accurate instructions on how to make them which are error checked through more sandbox testing, then experiment with deliberate, intelligent modifications of those functional proteins in yet more sandbox testing against all sorts of things they should and shouldn't react with, then incorporating this engineered protein into their function, something that more resembles our immune system than our reproduction, we would have a creature capable of adaptation, speciation, and growth, but not reproduction, not random mutation, not with errors, and with strong herotability of acquired traits.
I should think we would consider such an entity alive, which suggests that our definition of life is the problem, and not assigning the properties of life to that entity.
Ptolemy was the person who really made the geocentric model predictable I think
It would be possible for all of those things to exist without chemistry as we know it at all. For example, particles interacting inside of a neutron star. Coming together for extremely small time spans before dissolving again.
Oof this video would make a great base for a "can AI be alive" video
Maybe life is like obscenity: you know it when you see it. As for the mule the system of Horse + Donkey + Mule does reproduce itself, likewise for Horses alone or Donkeys alone, so Mules alone are not alive, but are alive with Horses & Donkeys, & if all the Horses & Donkeys died out at once, the Mules would still be alive with the extinct Horses & Donkeys having already done their job.
6:26 wouldn't be self-sustained seeking agent more suiting for life on Earth?
Can you define "seeking agent"
I guess you mean a agent trying to "get" stuff like food or even happiness
But I would point those small robots trying to go toward movement (let just say solar powered for the self sustained)
It is fine and often unavoidable to use words with some uncertainty in their definition. The point is that there is an overlap. We mean more or less, eg. 90%, the same when we say 'life'. Also, we can trust that we'll recognize life when we see it.
Who says a rock is not alive?!? It gets created and it gets destroyed therefor it is alive.
Because you don't see the tree growing doesn't mean the tree doesn't grow.
we?
Or why don't they just look at the soil under a fucking microscope you can see microbes with a microscope I don't understand this at all
100% no. I can prove it, but you wouldn't believe me.
You are not a physicist. You should reject the 2nd "law" of Thermodynamics (2LTD) as a general principle that applies to all systems. Biology should not comment on Black holes and Physics should not comment on living processes.
That said, the 2LTD is not wrong, but is not a lens for understanding living processes.
As a biologist, you know that living processes are extremely capable. A living process that has access to a source of low entropy would be expected to find a way to use it. And so the fact that living processes eat sources of low entropy for breakfast does not mean that they are entirely reliant on sources of low entropy.
The fact that all living processes we currently observe (seem to) depend on sources of low entropy does not mean that living processes universally depend on sources of low entropy. And if we can find an example of a living process that does indeed exist in the absence of sources of low entropy (we should be looking for that), then living processes are indeed an exception to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In that case, the 2LTD is not wrong, but it is demoted from "law" to a mere observation, a rule of thumb, that accurately describes some, but not all, physical systems.
For example, the 2LTD accurately describes physical systems such as boxes of very hot steam. No need to argue with that. But living processes are too far removed from being a box of hot gas. It only makes sense to remain skeptical of claims that it also applies to just any-old-physical-processes but especially living processes. We should not uncritically accept that it universally describes all physical processes.
Physicists would not take biologists seriously who speak about blackholes (were you planning a video on that next?)
Biologists need not take physicists seriously when they are speaking about living systems. Biologists, reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a universal "law" to which all physical systems -- including living systems -- must conform!
By taking the 2LTD too seriously, biologists will fail to recognize a living system that functions perfectly well without sources of low entropy (for example, a hypothetical living process that reduces the temperature of its environment).
9:23 to read text
FIRST
Too wordy. A 3-min video would be better.