• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Blurring the Line Between Life and Death

Wowbagger

The Infinitely Prolonged
Wowbagger
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
15,660
Location
Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
This topic might not be comfortable for all of you. But, I do find this sort of thing fascinating, myself.

I am looking for any and all examples that demonstrate a blurry line between the two states of "Life": "Alive" and "Dead"

And/Or:

Examples that blur the line between Living and Non-Living things.

You can feel free to define the terms "life", "non-life", "alive", "dead", etc. in any reasonable way you wish, since I suspect any attempt to conform the whole discussion to a specific set of definitions would be futile, here. (Supplying working definitions might help, but is optional, if it is clear enough in context.)

A few easy examples to jump start this process:

Most people do not consider viruses to be alive, but they could be said to "act" with many of the characteristics of life.

Prions are considered even less so, even though they could sometimes "act" as if they were, but using only protein segments (and no DNA).

Individual cells in an animal could remain alive, for some time, even if the animal is considered dead, in its overall state. If we model the animal as a "community of cells", we could define it as "partly dead".

And, what about those freakin' zombies?! They rise from the grave, and actively seek brains to eat, even though their bodies are almost entirely made of dead cells! Are they "alive" or are they "dead"?! I guess that one depends on who is making the movie.

(Strictly speaking, that last one was a joke, but seriously: If anyone could contribute ways in which zombies could be plausible (and, not in the p-zombie sense), that would be.... interesting.)
 
Last edited:
Most people do not consider viruses to be alive, but they could be said to "act" with many of the characteristics of life.
Click to expand...

What are the arguments against viruses being alive? They reproduce (in their manner) and mutate. Can it not be claimed they also demonstrate metabolism?
 
Concerning zombies, there's actually a good bit of reading on the topic.

In the article 5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse is Actually Possible, they mention stem-cell reanimation as one of the possible non-viral non-bacterial ways to bring about the living dead. They posited that an individual could take a brain-dead patient and regrow the brain using stem cells. However, according to this lab dedicated to reanimation research, the process of reanimation results in the cortex slowly dying off from the inside out. So you'd have the brain stem, but no cortex.

But what exactly is a zombie? According to Dictionary.com, a zombie is defined as "the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose." If we ignore purpose and force and just look at the product, we have the body of a person who was pronounced medically dead that, at some point after being pronounced dead, is reanimated in some way in that it loses both the ability of speech and its own free will. So far, the reanimation procedure is the closest method that fits the definition.
 
Last edited:
The freezing and thawing of organisms, e.g. human embryos, raises some interesting qestions.

Are they alive when no biological processes are taking place? If not, are they dead?
 
Dr Adequate said:
The freezing and thawing of organisms, e.g. human embryos, raises some interesting qestions.

Are they alive when no biological processes are taking place? If not, are they dead?
Click to expand...

Does freezing them stop all activity completely? Or does it just slow it down enormously? In the way that freezing (I had assumed) just slows down the decomposition of dead organic matter rather than stops it altogether.
Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe it's just refrigeration that does that.
Just curious.
 
Biotic and abiotic is a false dichotomy.

Dead and alive is more of a spectrum, I feel, where death refers to a system that no longer has the means to sustain its own functioning any more, and that functioning has abated.

Athon
 
plumjam said:
Does freezing them stop all activity completely? Or does it just slow it down enormously? In the way that freezing (I had assumed) just slows down the decomposition of dead organic matter rather than stops it altogether.
Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe it's just refrigeration that does that.
Just curious.
Click to expand...
I'd say it stops it: without a liquid medium, what could all the bits and bobs in the cell do? Stuff has to be able to float around in the cell.

There's a news story here about the successful implantation and gestation of an embryo after thirteen years frozen.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I'd say it stops it: without a liquid medium, what could all the bits and bobs in the cell do? Stuff has to be able to float around in the cell.

There's a news story here about the successful implantation and gestation of an embryo after thirteen years frozen.
Click to expand...

Yes. Thanks for the response.
 
Perpetual Student said:
What are the arguments against viruses being alive? They reproduce (in their manner) and mutate. Can it not be claimed they also demonstrate metabolism?
Click to expand...

I've never understood this one either. The reason usually given is that viruses can't reproduce outside of a living cell, and therefore they're not alive because they're dependent on using resources from that cell. However, this really seems like complete nonsense. All living things are entirely dependent on their environment, it's just that viruses are smal and therefore live in a different environment.

For example, a human's environment is the surface of the Earth. A bacterium's environment is inside a human. A viruses environment is inside the cells of a human. Saying that a virus isn't alive because it can't go about its business if you take it out of the human's cell makes no more sense than saying a human isn't alive because it can't eat or reproduce if you dump it on the surface of the Moon (without a spacesuit or any other protection for those who want to be picky).

And before anyone tries saying that the difference is that the human contains the mechanisms to be able to do those things while the virus doesn't, that's the whole point. A virus doesn't need to code for its own method of reproduction, because that already exists in the environment it is evolved to live in. That would be the same as saying that humans can't eat because we need plants to produce food for us. Everything is wholy reliant on its environment to survive. Viruses just happen to be evolved for a different environment.

Edit: As for the OP, someone has already mentioned sperm, but what about fetuses? That seems one of the more obvious examples of something that no-one can agree about.
 
Last edited:
Many "Artificial Life" practitioners like to think that their creations are "alive"
in some respects.
 
Wowbagger said:
And another question related to that:

It seems researchers are modeling fetuses as a type of tumor, nowadays.

When does a fetus cease being a tumor of the mother, and start being an individual life form?
Click to expand...

I wonder where that came from? :D
 
I kind of wonder myself about conscious life versus automatic life. Too many people today walk around in a semi-zombie state, going through motions but not being aware of anything - even themselves. Half-alive, they seem to me. Empty, hollow, brain-dead things that don't want to wonder about the world around them, that have no curiosity beyond the next tabloid scandal they read...

But that's not quite what you're going for, methinks.

What about artificial 'life'? Programs, for example, that perform all the virtual functions that 'life' is supposed to perform, but in an electronic or mechanical fashion? Is the underlying program that brings your Spore creature 'to life' any different, metaphysically speaking, from the underlying laws of physics that bring Ed Asner to life?
 
This could quickly relate to modes of consciousness such as coma. Terry Schiavo did not have higher brain function, yet, with a feeding tube, was kept alive. She was, in effect, a zombie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom