What is life? Are viruses alive?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 мар 2014
- What is it that makes things alive?
What if we made robots that could sustain themselves? What if they could mine metals or recycle old robots, reprogram and remake themselves? There's nothing there we would traditional call alive, but they would have at least have the essence of this perpetual rube Goldberg machine. Would that be called life? I don't think many people would. Those are just self replicating robots. Those are fucked up robots that need to learn there place under humanity's boot.
It might be another sort of replicating never ending Rube Goldberg machine, but maybe life is more specific to the shape that we apply the name to (with cells and DNA and all).
But then what about life on other planets?
Sometimes people say that we shouldn't assume all other forms of life are like ours because it's close minded. What if it's not just DNA and the cell. What if it's not even ....a code, and some bunch of stuff that reproduces the code in a way that we understand it.
What if it's something ambiguous that we can't even begin to comprehend or recognize?
but .....
What?
I think the uncertainty of what alien life might be like, maybe it's a side effect of being able to recognize and describe life here really easily, while right beside that having a difficult time defining it. There isn't really an unequivocal definition yet. So people can imagine some being of pure energy or whatever that we would recognize as life, without first imagining the fundamental process behind it and why we call it life.
Original "What is Life?" Video: • What is Life?
Patreon patreon.com/user?u=849925 
Наука
I was going to make a youtube channel about biology and life questions and stuff; then I saw your channel and I thought, "there's no way I can compete with this" That aside, keep up the good work.
+Ross Armstrong That's right this is my house biatch.
+Ross Armstrong But seriously make your channel. There are many biology channels and there needs to be more as there are endless topics that can be covered.
I'll see what I can do
+This Place I would be happy to script for you stuff about chemistry!
+Ross Armstrong Are you from Australia?
so if we made a robot, with one simple job, "make sure there is atleast one of you in existence at all times", if it were to make a copy of itself, it would techincally be alive?
+johannes nordeng Not if we kill it. Not if we kill it dead.
good thinking, it would probably be the best solution
Since everything degrades overtime to a lowest energy state, what's the perfect robot? I think a robot capable of building itself at an atomic level.
+johannes nordeng Nothing would really differentiate us from robots that are able to create a version of themselves before dying. "Life" is one of those concepts we use cause we like to feel special, I think.
+johannes nordeng nope.
I LOVE your Rube Goldberg machine! I could watch that animation all day!
Same, I was dissapointed when it ended..
make a gif of this
so we all can be satisfyed
RonnygoBOOM wtf crazy to see you here ouo
Choicecraft being dead makes me so saddd
Listening to your videos high is a real mind fuck
joseph bennett must try this. Also, try kurzgesagt. "Are you alone?" is amazing high.
What is life? Baby don't hurt me.
No more.
Lmao
+Epix Official what is life? life! life؟؟!؟؟
That rube Goldberg sequence was satisfying
It weirds me out thinking I'm only functioning as life because of some lifeless proteins doing their thing.
+Ryan Sargent Life is a lie, you can be explained with some elaborate equation.
+Ryan Sargent So, does that even make you alive? Is life some kind of illusion? 2spooky4me
_Reality is an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold, bye!_
+Ryan Sargent The most beautiful painting is "only" molecules of paint arranged on a canvas in a certain way. A beautiful rainbow is "only" a different scattering of light due to diffraction/refraction of sunlight through raindrops. The list goes on. I think our problem is that we have somehow come to believe that if we understand the mechanism by which something occurs, that it somehow destroys the wonder of that thing. We would be much better off to take the view most scientists do - when you see the mechanism, appreciate it in wonder. 'Wow, some lifeless proteins doing their thing results in mankind pondering their own existence, musicians creating masterpieces that move other people to tears, and everything else all life has accomplished. The universe truly is 'only' a magnificent place.'
+Preston Crosby You're a computer. A set of logic gates. Not just your brain, but everything else in and on you too. In fact, so is the universe. The universe isn't very good at it's job, (computing) because it hasn't evolved, just the things that are still in it have. The universe hasn't evolved, because it doesn't need to in order for you to witness it.
The nephew of your great great great greatx42543 grandma was a computer too. But perhaps that computer doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't made any replicas of itself, because it was bad at doing what your great grandpa did so well! Your grandpa was good at making viable replicas*. Or at least, good enough for now...
*replicas that change due to that being beneficial in helping make more replicas.
That enzyme sequence was glycolysis wasn't it?
Josh Cohen A+
+Joshua Cohen you're too kind, fellow Josh Cohen
This channel has far too little subscribers for the quality of work you're putting out.
agree
my butt: ppfffftttthhhhhppptttt
well said, butt.
That's a pretty profound argument!
+Nathan Lamberth not that airtight though.
+Nekogami-Crystal I dont know about you but i think the "hhpppt" part is brilliant..
pappaOfswe no that part is definitely just hot air.
and also, what comes after is a load of crap.
Nekogami-Crystal Yeah to some extent, but I got really motivated to do good when I first saw that part. It was like i found my long lost father.
your videos have so much effort put into them, i wouldn't be surprised if you end up with a few hundred-thousand subs, seriously this video was made so clear, and smooth that i didn't expect you to have such a low subscriber base compared to other youtubers with the same quality of videos
thanks you're a darling :)
This Place Your channel is underrated, i will share this channel.
It is the sad thing with youtube. New content creators get so little and Popular content creators that have been here a while get so much.
I mean this brilliant informative video gets way less views and likes than a retarded Pewdiepie video.
I love it when youtube recommends me these channels.
Wonderful job
The animation of the molecule being made is really impressive. I mean the Rube Goldberg machine was too, but the molecule-making required you to know a lot of very specific and complicated chemistry. Kudos.
Awesome .. ^^ I always (since I know they exist) wondered how viruses fit into the whole "life" thing.
Subscribed and I hope you continue this channel
I love these videos. I can watch them over and over but never get tired of them. ;D
you gave more questions than answers! I wouldn't want to be a school boy or a girl going to this posting and ending up more perplexed after watching this.
I really like this series. Subscribed and Liked! :D
I only just stumbled across your channel and I'm already hooked! The animations are just stunning :o
Please more videos! Your channel is so good! I enjoyed every video. You have talent. The design and how you approach the question is very good. Good job! Really hope you continue making videos.
I love your videos ... are so interesting and all things I have been questioning for a long time !
+This Place I love this kind of videos that teach you and yet leave you with more questions than answers, it really makes you think. Congratz, and keep up the good work
Finally...
a video that talks about the cell and no comment is from a creationist
I have LONG waited to see this
I was hoping to see a "ok" answer and isntead i got a very bealtful explanation. Instasubscribed. Nice work dude
Your content is fantastic you should have way more subscribers. Always learning stuff.
Thank you! Very well explained and you also have a great voice, which doesn't have to so with anything it's just an observation from my part. Anyway, good stuff. Helped a lot.
First video I watched of you and I have already subscribed. Keep up the good work! (:D)
This is really well done. My question is why don't you have more subscribers? This is the type of stuff I wanna know, damnit!
Your vids are really good, keep up the good work! :)
Man, you make real good videos, if you made them more often, you would have alot more subscribers
Why on earth are you not more popular?? I immediately subscrised to you!
Saw your page randomly, greatly enjoy listening.
I think that life is simply an arbitrary concept that we made up and that doesn't really apply in "reality". It's kinda like morality, good and evil, they are just concepts that *we* apply to "reality".
Animals and plants, viruses and fungi, are not good or evil, yet we classify them as either one much too often. I think the same concept works with life; we can classify anything as alive, since we make up the rules, but this is where the problems start.
The problem stems from our instinct to cathegorise things in a maximum of two different groups, or to try to find a single cause to an effect.but this kind of simplicity, as we mean it, isn't applicable in any branch of reality.
It's a bit like quantum mechanics.
*Is light a wave or a particle?*
+The Drunk Knight well said
***** Wait who's "they"? I don't really get the point in what you said, or how it contradicts what I said
***** Uh, I agree, I guess? I wouldn't call it "perception" since we define what we mean by organism in the first place, so we are a multicellular organism. I still don't see how this contradicts what I said
I agree life is just another arbitrary categorization we have made up to interpret our reality.
+The Drunk Knight The only problem is that we don't actually make up all the rules. We can't live without food or water. We can't live in the vacuum of space. We can't live in crushing gravity. We can't live if our hearts are cut open or removed carelessly. If there were a person who truly did not value their own life, they would cease to move, speak, or perform any other action. That leaves us with just the people who do value their own life. Because it requires intentional action to sustain our life, and not all actions function equally well toward that end, a natural classification of actions into 'beneficial' and 'harmful' arises. Morality and social norms are very distant extensions of that basic source, and there are innumerable opportunities for incorrect notions to get mixed in, and for their basis to depart entirely from the desires and needs of survival in some cases.
Those who wish to challenge the need for, say, food or water, or air, for their own continued survival, are free to accept that those things are not needed, but if they survive for more than an hour without air, or a couple weeks without water, or a couple months without food, you can be certain that any claims they make to not believe those things to actually be necessary for survival are either attempts to deceive you or themselves about their actual beliefs.
I've just watched a few of your videos and they're very high quality, and it makes me wonder why you only have 40k subs. These are up there with for Kurzgesagt and minute physics. Why don't you have a million?!?!?! XD
Glad I found this channel.
I've just discovered your channel. Great stuff!
Your video made me think, a lot. And, I love something that makes me think a lot.
At first glance I thought the title said " what is love" so I'm all like "baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more" anyone else???
you are awesome thank you for blowing my mind, enlightening me and making me laugh I concur with James Lewis your videos have so much work put into them you deserve more subscribers and likes. Thank you for the amazing videos
OMG!!!!
Great explaination of such a topic!!!!
love the Rube Goldberg analogy!
dont know why this was on my recommendations but i love it
keep the good job, this is awesome
Those videos are amazing.
Very informative! I'm surprised there's no comments.
this is delightful!
This Video is really Educational, very well worded and above all immensely entertaining 10/10. I diverse 1.000.000 views (in my opinion).
by the definition of life that my high-school biology teacher gave me viruses are not living. He defined life as something that 1) self-replicated 2) could somehow absorb energy from its environment to maintain it self long enough for self-replication 3) have specialized parts. Viruses fail on part 2.
Mann such a good video! How did you animate it?🤔🤔🤔
"Life is just the cycling of interactions." This blew my mind because it's true. XD accurate definition of life honestly
That was really great! I can tell you have a detailed education. I promote thinkers. This is what I look for. Can you recommend a couple of your fav's of your material to get me started and save me from having to hunt for them? (links plz) thx look forward to ingesting more.
This was exceptionally engaging. What animation software do you use?
The best definition of life I've found is:
1. It reproduces.
2. It can avoid entropy.
You could say a machine that makes doorknobs is reproducing doorknobs but when the materials needed to make doorknobs stop coming so does it's reproduction (it fails 2). Likewise when a rogue protein like the one that creates mad cow disease runs out of healthy proteins to convert into itself it stops reproducing, it has no strategy to get to another cow except through us feeding that cow to another cow (that is how mad cow disease goes around) it also fails 2, but less hard. Viruses also fail 2 since on their own they can't do anything, but their odds of running out of materials (i.e. stuff to infect) is even lower than that of a protein disease.
So even this definition while quite good at catching even abiological or obscure forms of life is not perfect because there are always gradients, a cynobacteria could go on and on in Earth's oceans but what if they evaporated? And eventually they will, so does that mean bacteria fail 2 at that point? Clearly there are tiers of how good a proposed lifeform is at 2 and an arbitrary line will have to be drawn somewhere.
the animations are really rad. probably the best i have ever seen on youtube.
the writing however is one gigantic ramble. not very easy to follow and not accurate enough for this kind of video to truely go viral. vsauce for example is carried by the energy of the guy talking, but the writing makes the whole thing possible to be carried in the first place.
You're awesome!
your videos are very informatifs thanks
awsome video!!!!!
Pro Video Man!
You raised more questions than answers
Amazing work. What software you use for the animation?
You have a great voice! Reminds me of CGP Grey guy.
nicely explained
very interesting and well made video, liked it a lot! Which technique and softaware are you using to animate your drawings?
Balazs Kocsis I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audacity, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate. Then bring that into Premiere to cut it together and add sound effects.
Good video
holy wow, ill have to think on that. Thanks
Great video.
I would considered viruses to be alive. They reproduce and evolve just any other life form. But depending on the criteria for something to be alive that could change.
life is just many machines, and it is so complex that it perceives itself as alive.
My view on this:
A lot of terms humans have made to explain things are just for some sort of feeling of sense.
The terms may become blurry when zoomed in on, but with a simplistic view, they make perfect sense.
This video raises more questions than it answers
so a 3D printer that's able to print itself (including software and hardware) if it has supplies and energy, is also an organism ? I discussed with a friend about this some time ago, he said it is not the same but following this video it might be, right?
Oh man. Best TROLL TIME I've ever seen at 1:43. Draws you in with an innocent looking _"Fructose Bisphosphate Aldolase"_ until you realise that the whole time you've just been staring at Fructose Bisphosphate *ADolase* like a cross-eyed cretin. Vintage troll. Sweet Burn. Game set and match, thanks for playing everyone. Competition over.
"It's life, Jim- but not as we know it..."
That was in my book, sooooo interesting!
A good analogy for viruses would've been a punch card for old computers this is versus the machines you described. I'm not saying that this video wasn't great I liked and I subscribed, just an idea.
But again how many people know what bunch cards are? so I don't know could've possibly been a CD...
*mindblown*
Bro, great vid and channel, i realise this vid is from 2014 and current 2021 pandemic stuff rises more questions about virusses and i do not even know if your made an updat about this but i want to share my perception of this: To me viral infection ignites from WITHIN the cell, NOT outside the cell. Virus is the description for an exosome protein processing a cleaning or detox function within the cell. An exosome is some RNA capsules into a protein membrane , its not alive and its can maintain a wide range of functions, one of them is cleaning or detoxing the cel from toxins or poison, this cleaning proces we call VIRUS. As the exosome proteine is coded within your own DNA it is impossible to me that it can be contagion unless the DNA coding is the same or fine tuned into the exosome. A way to do this is sending pattern information through algorithms to the transcription process in a cell, when injected with modified enzymes that can transfer coding to ribosomes this would be possible.
life: exists
virus: it's a free real estate
Last book in the Enders game original 4 books deals with this in an awesome and interesting way
who else thought of the middle of "powerhouse" by raymond scott (the dan dan dan dan dan song) when he talked about the Rube Goldberg Machine?
This was 5 years ago? Damn, you're aging pretty well...
Are organisms in a way dependant on the exposure of viruses in order to learn or in the least maintain it's known functionality
I view life as something that replicates itself based on a set of interactions, and I believe viruses fit this definition, while that may not have cellular life, this is obvious, their kind if life is different than ours.
edit: Crap I forgot! I meant to say that this is the best video and probably one of the best summaries of the topic I have ever come across! Thank you for giving it to the world!
I have read tons about this question, and heard many, many different arguments on the topic of how one might define 'alive', which often arises from asking if viruses are alive. I have come to what I believe to be the only possible conclusion: The distinction between 'alive' and 'not alive' is meaningless. What I mean, specifically, is that there is absolutely no additional information contained in the statement "X is alive" or "X is not alive". If I tell you either of those things, there is not one single thing that you now know definitively about X. It might have a metabolism, or it might not. It might contain the DNA to reproduce itself, or it might not (don't forget some viruses are only RNA... and what about prions?). It might be capable of self-reproduction, or it might not. If you take the position that a virus is alive once it enters a cell, because it then conducts life-like operations, you would be forced to also take the position that water, enzymes, potassium and sodium molecules, and other such things are also alive. Those things also cross cell walls and, once inside, become a participant in the exact same life-like operations which would not have occurred at that point if they were not present.
I was a bit surprised that you did not mention computer code and computer viruses in the video. It goes a bit beyond being simply a metaphor to call certain computer code 'viruses'. If you are not going to take the totally indefensible cop-out position that 'life must be carbon based' or 'life must be DNA based', then the patterns of electromagnetic activity inside a computer can arguably be considered alive if your definition of 'alive' deals with things like self-reproduction. Often people want to claim viruses or computer code can not be alive because they depend so heavily on their environment. Without a cell, or without a CPU and memory to be stored in, they cannot reproduce. However, every organism traditionally regarded as alive (people, individual cells, etc) is exactly as dependent upon their environment. Take away water, or sodium, or potassium, or sunlight, or oxygen, or whatever they use, and they will cease all life-like activities.
The other issue you mentioned, what constitutes an organism, is also extremely fascinating but I won't get into it here. I'll just mention that separation seems very important to evolution. Cell walls, the organ of skin preventing our cells freely intermingling with bacteria and whatever living and non-living things other humans introduce to our bodies surface, etc.
In the end, I've got to say, I think life is meaningless. Not in the way most mean that phrase, human life is full of meaning, but the actual word 'life'. It can not be defined in such a way that it has consistent, universally applicable, meaning. Either you end up classifying computer code and basic long-running chemical reactions as alive (and stars!), or you rule out endospores, certain types of bacteria, viruses, prions, and other things you would WANT to be alive for the term to be useful.
+Dustin Rodriguez You think too much.
I love the hypothesis of viruses being weapons from cells to attack other cells, or from bacteria, or other, to help them pass genetic information to their companions. Viruses evolve, and mutate ridiculously "easy" and "fast", so it is fun to say that viruses are kind of alive.
1:55 - 2:06 was just beautiful
Dna is a map. Alive is something that uses the map. Viruses are like a box with a map in it floating through the sea. If a ship(something that already has a map) sees that box, they're probably gonna grab it and use it. Hence, changing course, changing maps. To me, yes, that's similar to a parasitic relationship in that often, the virus leads the ship off course. But not a parasite in that it doesn't always seem intentional malign. Imagine a virus that helps your body. Gives you superhuman strength. No longer a parasite, but still a forceful restructuring, and still benefiting itself. In a way, I guess you could consider most viruses parasites, and others, a lucky map.
his voice makes me fall asleep. sayng this in the best way possible. i mean what he has to say is awesome but idk it makes me wanna sleep!! lol
Can you add an Organism counter??
try defining death first might be really helpful to see the contrast in terms of a living things
like a switch see whats the difference between a dead human and an alive one
or maybe causes of death under focus
why a person is called dead
this might shed more light into the definition of living things
احمد يونس I was actually thinking about something similar throughout the video. Let's say you were to have a heart attack and die. Aren't the cells that make up your body still alive ? So if every cell in your body is still alive, or at least the vast majority, aren't you technically still alive ? I mean, the cells can't be dead, because we are indeed able to resuscitate people up to several minutes after they're dead and I'm sure you couldn't resuscitate someone who's made up of dead cells. So in term, what makes us alive ? Because the way I see it, we can be classified as dead with a body full of living cells.
iwolfman37 when i said try to understand the death i was talking about quantum mechanics and other theoretical physics approaches for the answers about mater and energy or let me say the universe around us
iwolfman37 What youre talking about i believe is being brain dead. Youre considered clinically dead because your brain isnt responding to stimuli when presented to one from the environment even though your body is still functioning.
I once imagined shooting lumps of moss into space to become the basis of life in other galaxies. Then, we would wait until that life became sentient and created time-machines to find us again within a lifetime.
On topic, the closest physical representation of 'reproduction' is circular motion formed from gravitational orbits, spinning planets, electrons/protons, convection etc. in my opinion. Perhaps combinations of atoms that required the least energy to perpetuate this circular motion eventually formed the first life on earth.
Jack Smith That would be so much better. People seem to get excited over finding "Earth-like". What we should do is just start shooting life at planets. Some organisms will stick and eventually evolve to something that is interesting to look at.
This Place can anyone say ARK?
If you just start shooting living things into space, they'll probably die before anything interesting. Assuming the lack of air doesn't kill them, they could burn up in a star, appear on an abandoned planet and nothing happens, or get absorbed by a black hole. Sounds good in theory, but many things do and many do not end well.
P.s. What if we just lose all life on earth and it spreads throughout the universe? Is it still "Earth"?
Jack Smith This is a really common train of thought even with scientists. Look up Panspermia, it's the concept of planets spitting out matter containing life forms that can survive space and re-entry heat. Quite interesting, maybe our earlier micro-organic selves aren't even from this planet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
This Place Sudden extreme changes in the environment will no doubt kill most anything we send. What we could do, however, is send small "micro-biomes" that allow for a temporary suitable environment for the bacteria, fungus, or what have you. Over time, allow this micro-biome to very, very slowly let the outer planetary environment seep in. I'm very certain that would work, but as for the amount of time it would actually take, I'm uncertain.
There have been some guidelines laid out, about what life is. Supposedly, there have to be certain processes in a system, to call it "alive". Some of the most basic ones were reproduction and metabolism, basically a lifeform has to be able to produce some form of offspring, and it usually works by turning energy over to maintain its homeostasis (a constant internal environment) and perhaps to interact with the environment, like to move, to react to stimuli.
I think in the future, we'll have to deal with more complicated issues... like, when artificial intelligence comes along, how do we classify that? Intelligent systems, how will we treat them - do we treat them as inanimate objects, or do we treat them with the respect we (should) treat all lifeforms?
It's great to think about those things a bit... exercise for the brain.
Anonymous247n A computer virus is basically alive if a virus is alive
I would say that life is defined by two properties
1) Some intervention is required for the persistence of existence (Clause of Sufficiency)
2) Some NON-intervention is required for the persistence of existence (Clause of Necessity)
The first clause is unique to life (and chemical reactions generally), that it requires something beyond itself to keep on existing as itself. We need air, water, food, love and so on, for the identity (the type of existence: humans) we are ends. This is not the case for a rock for example. A rock doesn't need anything to keep on existing.
The second clause is not unique to life. The rock too, requires certain things to NOT interact with it in order to keep existing. Not interacting with a meteor, or a certain amount of pressure, gradient of heat and so on. Life and non-life share this property, but not the first. As an aside I would qualify whatever is 'fundamental' as something which is NEITHER defined by the first or second clause.
In any case, that's how I define 'biotic' things from 'abiotic' things at the most basic level.
I liked this video a lot.. As humans we view life from varying levels. Anatomy gives us a decent view when it comes to biological organization, from Atom-Molecule-Macromolecule-Cell-Tissue-Organ-Organ System-Organism-Population-Community-Ecosystem-Biosphere. If you display it on a leveled scale like that, the ideas sort of unravel. I'm not sure if this sounds philosophically coherent, but do we not have to apply different definitions of "life" to different levels on our given biological organization? But to link it back to the topic.. Is a virus alive? Well, I guess I'm assuming a virus is a macromolecule, but a macromolecule is "alive" in a separate way than an organism is. Similar to how you or I are not an economy (which, by the way, would an economy (the interactions b/w people in a population) be what life & perception is to us, minus the self-aware part, but for the population?) It feels good to change my outlook on "life", I have been asking this question myself for a while. I'll probably bring this up to the philosophy club that I run. Boom. Subscribed. What's up.
I have the same thoughts. The more I learned about cells, the more they seamed like unthinking machines where one thing bumped into another thing causing another thing to bump something else. There was know conscious thinking at all. So I asked my biology professor about whether a cell could "think". And he didn't know how to respond. At what does a cluster of cells become a thinking brain. and when does sentience emerge?
There are many ways to approach this. From point of view of computer science a cell is a full Turing machine (meaning it can theoretically perform any computation or implement any algorithm). A cell is basically a DNA attached to a self-sustaining metabolic computer. A gene can be activated or deactivated by specific combination of chemicals and can produce a specific chemical (which is equivalent to logical formula in DNF form - google for more info). So a cell could theoretically "think" in a same way a computer could theoretically "think".
As for sentience, experiments conducted on animals and people with brain-damage show that sentience is not a single thing. Instead it is a amalgam of many largely independent skills, which seem to reside in different parts of brain (technically they run on separate sub-processors). For example ability to count and compare amounts numerically is present in many species (some as primitive as aquarium fishes) and there are people with rare disorder which lack this skill, but are perfectly (mentally) healthy otherwise.
We do not yet know which combinations of skills are necessary to constitute a consciousness. In fact, consciousness is a artificial human-made concept - whether you consider something conscious or not may be just a matter of interpretation.
When you are aware of the Fact that you are just a tiny part of the whole and everything is connected. When you truly understand the nature of the cosmos. And shed yourself of ego. What i consider our greatest sin
Civilization - can it be considered a single organism?
Interesting conjecture
They certainly have a propensity to propagate their own existence and spawn new versions of themselves although I think it gets sketchy when you start trying to define where one begins and another ends. I guess it would make more sense to think of human civilization as a singular organism stretching back to our tribal "gestation period". Maybe that's what we mean when we say humanity is "still in its infancy". What other organism could you think of though that actively resists its own development? Maybe if cells could self-identify we would have similar problems at the microscopic level, haha.
lumburgapalooza well technically civilization does evolve. It evolves from hunter-gatherers where its individual are not specialized in any one area to modern civilization where people perform specialized task to keep society working. For example, politicians can be seen as the nerve cells of an organism or a low class workers as the red blood cells of a society. And now with the internet, the viscosity of the flow of information has dramatically decreased and stripping away barriers of individuals to communicate ideas with other people. Essentially it is a hive mind. For example, memes, no one really knows the exact cause of these memes but they simply propagate as ideas in the minds of millions of people.
"What other organism could you think of though that actively resists its own development?"
CRISPR looks for foreign/mutated DNA and corrects it, which is how science has turned it into a gene editing tool
@@avochristos7834and doctors are white blood cells. The homeless or disabled are free radicals. Where do strippers fit in this analogy?
I always feel like viruses are like parasites but that are so reliant on their host that they literally can't do anything without them.
This guy seriously reminds me of Phrismo from Adventure Time.
Mind blown
the idea that viruses evolved from cells, and are therefore nonlife(?) descended from life, has always been profoundly unsettling to me.
Life isn't an object or chemical or substance. Life is a collection of chemical and physical processes through which the system gains energy and mass until it is able to reproduce, and then the cycle is continued by the offspring. Living things are ever changing, dynamic entities that constantly switch out their sets atoms and cells and energy for other sets of atoms cells and energy. Because of this, I define life as the set of processes together rather than the matter that carries out the processes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor
there are various cellular automaton computer simulations that doe what your arrows do, modiviable and on a 2d grid, making for a simple simulation. on a square grid squares can have multiple states. a state determines how that state progresses through the 2dgrid or how it changes nearby tiles of the square grid. unlike "conways game of life" wich is minimalistic binary, others have multiple more complex states that "move" trough space like molecules. they can build paths of other states, the path with the states moing on the path can create self replicating complex structures that even alow for mutations that are non fatal and inherited.